4 ms·

> forced to either pay for the bird’s protection and preservation, which would cost almost $50,000 per year. Otherwise, they could have the mural removed, which

• imgabe 3y ago
  Yes, actually. The US has the Visual Artists Rights Act which means an artist can sue if you destroy their artwork. France has even stronger laws where you can’t destroy an artwork even with the permission of the artist. I assume the UK has similar laws.
  • fred_is_fred 3y ago
    The US also has strong don't paint other people's houses laws. If what you say is true, I could graffiti your front door and sue you if you tried to fix it. I don't think that's at all how the law works for us.
  • vlz 3y ago
    Ok, but that doesn't seem to apply to "normal" graffiti does it? People remove them all the time, even when they are quite good or interesting.
    • wahnfrieden 3y ago
      we're not actually a very rules based society
      • shjake 3y ago
        Or rather these ‘rules’ would only generally apply anywhere if the mural/graffiti was painted with the consent of the owner
  • otherme123 3y ago
    I understood that they want to profit. But people are stealing parts or painting over, so they either have to put security (50k per year) or sell it paying 200k for the removal. They really are asking potential buyers to pay the bill. For what I read about VARA, it applies only if you paid the artist to paint the graffiti, and later you decide to destroy it, as the artist keeps some rights even if you own the art.
  • i_am_jl 3y ago
    For what it's worth, I don't think this would be protected in the US. In the US, graffiti artists' rights have only been upheld under VARA if their work was permitted by the property owner. The artists suing the developers who painted over 5 Pointz were successful because their work was created with the consent of the property owners. However, more recently a property management company in California was not held responsible for painting over murals on their building that were painted without the owner's consent: "CCI concedes that the statutory provisions of the VARA “do[] not expressly state that the consent of the building owner is necessary.” Id. Instead, CCI argues that “common sense” implies a requirement that a plaintiff must plead consent of a building owner to establish standing and access the protections of the VARA. Id. The Court agrees with CCI, at least with regards to works of art that cannot be removed from a building without causing their destruction." https://casetext.com/case/canilao-v-city-commercial-invs https://casetext.com/case/canilao-v-city-commercial-invs EDIT: -Chicago +California
  • mytailorisrich 3y ago
    Spray painting some's house without their consent is not 'artwork', it's criminal damage.
    • netrus 3y ago
      It can be both.
      • mytailorisrich 3y ago
        In law it's only criminal damage...
• i_am_jl 3y ago
  The Sun article mentions the council having the ability to make some sort of preservation order? Ostensibly this is to protect historic properties, but it seems like an overreach to apply that to a mural painted without the property owner's consent. I can't otherwise explain how the property owners are being held responsible for damage done to the mural.
• ugh123 3y ago
  From this linked article: https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plastering-our-home/amp/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plast... It says: >But after the Coutts’ were told by Suffolk council it would cost tens of thousands of pounds to maintain every year - they made the decision to have it removed. Mr Coutts told The Times: “At first it was obviously incredible but as things have gone on it has become extremely stressful. I’m not sure Banksy realises the unintended consequences on homeowners. If we could turn back the clock, we would. “We had the council get in touch to tell us that they could put a preservation order on the piece and we would be responsible for maintaining it at a cost of £40,000 a year.
  • anothernewdude 3y ago
    Could, but haven't yet. Seems like they need to spray it with paint remover ASAP, preferably at night.
    • fastball 3y ago
      Why do they need to do it at night? It's their house, they can paint it.
    • ralferoo 3y ago
      That linked article also says "Another time vandals were caught with a dozen pots of white paint and were apparently going to paint over it." so it seems like a free solution to the problem is already presenting itself, but they actively took steps to prevent that from happening.
  • civilized 3y ago
    The real villain here seems to be UK law and local busybodies. I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.
    • ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      > I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation. His painting shredder piece suggests that he's specifically making the point that his art is temporary and that ties in with his general graffiti style. If he wanted it to be easy for people to buy and sell his art, he'd do it on something a bit more portable than the side of a house. A lot of his art around Bristol (where I live and Banksy's home town) is very much designed for the public to enjoy rather than to be traded.