6 ms·

Artists Commandeer (illegal) Manhattan Billboards

29 points by ivankirigin 18y ago

FahnRobier 18y ago
Read the May 3rd post at http://www.publicadcampaign.com/ http://www.publicadcampaign.com/ It explains the difference between first-party signage and third-party signage. It sounds like this group had been targeting illegal third-party signage and that a certain company (NPA) had found an ingenious legal way to have third-party signage classified as first-party signage. Rob
- gojomo 18y ago
  I like NPA's legal hack! Here's the direct permalink: http://www.publicadcampaign.com/2009/05/how-to-convert-illegal-third-parties.html http://www.publicadcampaign.com/2009/05/how-to-convert-illeg... OTOH, a New Yorker once mentioned to me there were people (other than the property owner) who had de facto control over the 'flyposting' in certain areas; if you paid them, you could be sure your posters were up (and not covered by others). It seemed vaguely like a protection racket. Can anyone else confirm or refute that it sometimes works that way?
dougp 18y ago
I liked the ads better.
neilc 18y ago
This just seems like vandalism. If the original billboards truly are "illegal" (which I'm skeptical of), it is a matter for the city government, not a bunch of "artists".
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  I wouldn't call painting over temporary plywood walls covered in movie Ads vandalism.
  - tc 18y ago
    If a stranger (carefully) picked the lock to your home, then proceeded to vacuum-clean your carpets, mop your floors, and wash your windows, would you not call that breaking and entering? (I'm assuming here that the original advertisements were placed with the permission of the property owners. Otherwise the placing of the initial advertisements was vandalism, as is replacing them with something else.)
    - warfangle 18y ago
      Most of these temporary plywood walls, when they initially go up, are covered in stenciled signs saying "post no bills." Week or two later, and they're covered in these cheap poster ads.
      - dan_the_welder 18y ago
        Well I flyer for my business and we typically put a single flyer in several locations, sticking to billboards or phone poles. Whats really gross is when an ad agency uses a "street team" to carpet bomb every available surface. I also provide a bulletin board for public use in my establishment. I regularly have to remove the posters of people who put up ten or more and cover up other peoples flyers. I also remove the flyers that people put on my front windows, the bathroom mirrors and even tabletops. So really I see this issue as exactly the same as managing a message board. Encourage good content and delete spam or your board becomes a ghetto with a lousy signal to noise ratio. As far as the artists go, whether they are better or worse than the ads is a subjective decision. If anything they are at least creating a dialogue which is worth something.
  - Radix 18y ago
    If the owners of the temporary plywood walls recieved any money, I would. But, I don't live in a city. If warfangle is right then I guess not.
- teej 18y ago
  > If the original billboards truly are "illegal" They are. It's called "flyposting". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyposting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyposting
  - neilc 18y ago
    Flyposting is by definition illegal ("Flyposting is the act of placing advertising posters or flyers in illegal places"), but that doesn't answer the question about whether these particular ad billboards are illegal. The question is whether the original billboards were placed with the permission of the property owners.
    - paulgb 18y ago
      Permission from the property owner isn't enough; you need a permit to post advertisements (except in certain circumstances, IIRC). It is possible that the artists checked for permits before declaring the posters illegal. There are some people who actively work to get illegal billboards removed: http://illegalbillboards.org/ http://illegalbillboards.org/ http://illegalsigns.ca/ http://illegalsigns.ca/
tc 18y ago
From the video: We're trying to make a point here that the public should be the ones using the public space and not commercial and private interests. This guy lives in a different world. Equivocation aside, those 'public' spaces are privately owned. When this guy says that the 'public' should be the ones to decide, what he really means is that he thinks his opinion of how the space should be used ought to trump that of the owners who pay to own and maintain their property.
- space_cowboy 18y ago
  Standard self-righteous anti-advertising screed being used to justify vandalism. Nothing interesting to see here. Move along.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    I agree that anti-advertising screeds are annoying, but surely you agree that the works are more aesthetically pleasing than a movie poster?
    - stavrianos 18y ago
      Beside the point. You wouldn't take it upon yourself to change people's clothes on the street, no matter how much better your fashion sense is.
      - ivankirigin 18y ago
        It's more like intercepting spam and replacing it with a haiku
        stavrianos 18y ago
        The difference is, your inbox is yours. Those walls belong to someone, and if they want to turn a profit renting the space to advertisers, that's their business and no-one else's. edit: Questions of legality aside, I mean.
bendtheblock 18y ago
Give me the art over the ads any day. In large cities, our vision is violated by garish sprawling advertisements from public places, so even if the property is private, it still infringes on the individual. Billboard advertising can be oppressive, because people are exposed to the ads without consent, and they are, well, big. The very root of advertising is that companies seek to "create" a need/desire in the individual, which can ultimately exacerbate the worst aspects of consumerism - loss of community values, commercialisation of childhood etc. Maybe the action of these artists isn’t "the answer" but it's definitely an effective way of making people think.
- tjic 18y ago
  > our vision is violated by garish sprawling advertisements from public places, so even if the property is private, it still infringes on the individual. Can you explain to me how your stance doesn't equally disapprove of people saying things that you disagree with (which is quaintly called "freedom of speech") ? > people are exposed to the ads without consent Oh noz! Why, exactly, do you think that your proposed "right not to see things you don't want to see" trumps the right of others to advertise on their own property / speak their own minds?
  - ankhmoop 18y ago
    I believe the most interesting aspect of your comment is the conflation of individual, corporate, and commercial speech as "free speech". Why, exactly, do you think that your proposed "right not to see things you don't want to see" trumps the right of others to advertise on their own property / speak their own minds? Your position is predicated on the idea that other's speech and property rights trump speech rights -- that is, the artists' free speech rights are constrained by the property and free speech rights of the advertisers and owners. Does this not imply that there could be constraints on the exercise of free speech insofar as it infringes upon the rights of others? Could pervasive, unavoidable public advertising, explicitly designed to instill desire through emotional manipulation, somehow infringe on my rights as an individual to not listen?
    - 18y ago
apstuff 18y ago
Hey, RB. Haven't been there since Amanda threw herself to the floor kicking and screaming. ABC wasn't it?

29 points by ivankirigin 18y ago

Read the May 3rd post at http://www.publicadcampaign.com/ http://www.publicadcampaign.com/ It explains the difference between first-party signage and third-party signage. It sounds like this group had been targeting illegal third-party signage and that a certain company (NPA) had found an ingenious legal way to have third-party signage classified as first-party signage. Rob

gojomo 18y ago
I like NPA's legal hack! Here's the direct permalink: http://www.publicadcampaign.com/2009/05/how-to-convert-illegal-third-parties.html http://www.publicadcampaign.com/2009/05/how-to-convert-illeg... OTOH, a New Yorker once mentioned to me there were people (other than the property owner) who had de facto control over the 'flyposting' in certain areas; if you paid them, you could be sure your posters were up (and not covered by others). It seemed vaguely like a protection racket. Can anyone else confirm or refute that it sometimes works that way?

dougp 18y ago

I liked the ads better.

neilc 18y ago

This just seems like vandalism. If the original billboards truly are "illegal" (which I'm skeptical of), it is a matter for the city government, not a bunch of "artists".

ivankirigin 18y ago
I wouldn't call painting over temporary plywood walls covered in movie Ads vandalism.
- tc 18y ago
  If a stranger (carefully) picked the lock to your home, then proceeded to vacuum-clean your carpets, mop your floors, and wash your windows, would you not call that breaking and entering? (I'm assuming here that the original advertisements were placed with the permission of the property owners. Otherwise the placing of the initial advertisements was vandalism, as is replacing them with something else.)
  - warfangle 18y ago
    Most of these temporary plywood walls, when they initially go up, are covered in stenciled signs saying "post no bills." Week or two later, and they're covered in these cheap poster ads.
    - dan_the_welder 18y ago
      Well I flyer for my business and we typically put a single flyer in several locations, sticking to billboards or phone poles. Whats really gross is when an ad agency uses a "street team" to carpet bomb every available surface. I also provide a bulletin board for public use in my establishment. I regularly have to remove the posters of people who put up ten or more and cover up other peoples flyers. I also remove the flyers that people put on my front windows, the bathroom mirrors and even tabletops. So really I see this issue as exactly the same as managing a message board. Encourage good content and delete spam or your board becomes a ghetto with a lousy signal to noise ratio. As far as the artists go, whether they are better or worse than the ads is a subjective decision. If anything they are at least creating a dialogue which is worth something.
- Radix 18y ago
  If the owners of the temporary plywood walls recieved any money, I would. But, I don't live in a city. If warfangle is right then I guess not.
teej 18y ago
> If the original billboards truly are "illegal" They are. It's called "flyposting". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyposting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyposting
- neilc 18y ago
  Flyposting is by definition illegal ("Flyposting is the act of placing advertising posters or flyers in illegal places"), but that doesn't answer the question about whether these particular ad billboards are illegal. The question is whether the original billboards were placed with the permission of the property owners.
  - paulgb 18y ago
    Permission from the property owner isn't enough; you need a permit to post advertisements (except in certain circumstances, IIRC). It is possible that the artists checked for permits before declaring the posters illegal. There are some people who actively work to get illegal billboards removed: http://illegalbillboards.org/ http://illegalbillboards.org/ http://illegalsigns.ca/ http://illegalsigns.ca/

tc 18y ago

From the video: We're trying to make a point here that the public should be the ones using the public space and not commercial and private interests. This guy lives in a different world. Equivocation aside, those 'public' spaces are privately owned. When this guy says that the 'public' should be the ones to decide, what he really means is that he thinks his opinion of how the space should be used ought to trump that of the owners who pay to own and maintain their property.

space_cowboy 18y ago
Standard self-righteous anti-advertising screed being used to justify vandalism. Nothing interesting to see here. Move along.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  I agree that anti-advertising screeds are annoying, but surely you agree that the works are more aesthetically pleasing than a movie poster?
  - stavrianos 18y ago
    Beside the point. You wouldn't take it upon yourself to change people's clothes on the street, no matter how much better your fashion sense is.
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      It's more like intercepting spam and replacing it with a haiku
      - stavrianos 18y ago
        The difference is, your inbox is yours. Those walls belong to someone, and if they want to turn a profit renting the space to advertisers, that's their business and no-one else's. edit: Questions of legality aside, I mean.

bendtheblock 18y ago

Give me the art over the ads any day. In large cities, our vision is violated by garish sprawling advertisements from public places, so even if the property is private, it still infringes on the individual. Billboard advertising can be oppressive, because people are exposed to the ads without consent, and they are, well, big. The very root of advertising is that companies seek to "create" a need/desire in the individual, which can ultimately exacerbate the worst aspects of consumerism - loss of community values, commercialisation of childhood etc. Maybe the action of these artists isn’t "the answer" but it's definitely an effective way of making people think.

tjic 18y ago
> our vision is violated by garish sprawling advertisements from public places, so even if the property is private, it still infringes on the individual. Can you explain to me how your stance doesn't equally disapprove of people saying things that you disagree with (which is quaintly called "freedom of speech") ? > people are exposed to the ads without consent Oh noz! Why, exactly, do you think that your proposed "right not to see things you don't want to see" trumps the right of others to advertise on their own property / speak their own minds?
- ankhmoop 18y ago
  I believe the most interesting aspect of your comment is the conflation of individual, corporate, and commercial speech as "free speech". Why, exactly, do you think that your proposed "right not to see things you don't want to see" trumps the right of others to advertise on their own property / speak their own minds? Your position is predicated on the idea that other's speech and property rights trump speech rights -- that is, the artists' free speech rights are constrained by the property and free speech rights of the advertisers and owners. Does this not imply that there could be constraints on the exercise of free speech insofar as it infringes upon the rights of others? Could pervasive, unavoidable public advertising, explicitly designed to instill desire through emotional manipulation, somehow infringe on my rights as an individual to not listen?
  - 18y ago

apstuff 18y ago

Hey, RB. Haven't been there since Amanda threw herself to the floor kicking and screaming. ABC wasn't it?