
N.Y. landlord ordered to pay $6.7M for destroying graffiti - shaki-dora
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/13/a-landlord-obliterated-dozens-of-graffiti-murals-now-he-owes-the-artists-6-7-million
======
kevin_b_er
> As a final resort, Cohen tried to prevent the imminent demolition by seeking
> a preliminary injunction against Wolkoff under the Visual Artists Rights
> Act. The court denied the plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction
> but said an opinion would come within eight days.

> “Rather than wait for the Court’s opinion,” Block wrote, “Wolkoff destroyed
> almost all of the plaintiffs’ paintings by whitewashing them during that
> eight-day interim.”

Here's the key lines. The landlord attempted an end-run around the courts.
They failed and are now subject to heavy penalty for trying to subvert the
courts.

------
rando444
I feel like these artists just screwed over their own community. Sure they got
some money, but at what cost?

The owner originally allowed these artists an opportunity and a venue to
express themselves at no cost, and when he had decided it was time to move on,
his kind gesture was met with hostility and greed on the part of the artists.

These artists may have gotten their payday, but in doing so now every building
owner will think twice about allowing artists to paint, and their fellow
artists and the general public who enjoy this kind of art will be the ones
that suffer the consequences the most.

~~~
gonyea
You didn’t read the article, did you?

The landlord destroyed the artwork before the courts resolved the case. This
has nothing to do with artists; these power plays happen periodically and
they’re subsequently beaten like a dog by the courts.

~~~
rando444
You didn't read my comment did you?

The artists wouldn't have any power to play with and wouldn't have even have
had this venue to practice their art if it wasn't for the kindness of the
building owner.

The artists are setting a precedent for property owners that to prevent being
"beaten like a dog", the best solution is to not let people practice their art
on your property.

------
markpapadakis
Looks like the owner didn’t do this gracefully and didn’t care much about the
significance of the Art to its creators and others who appreciated it likely
way more than he did. That’s not very nice. On the other hand, if it is indeed
his property he should have the right to do what he wants with it. Unless
there was a contract of some kind, not a lawyer, I don’t understand how the
judge could have sided with the artists who themselves were on a private
property and ended up making claims to said property. Aren’t judges supposed
to be impartial and make decisions based on the letter of the law ? Though I
suppose the law in the us may protect the artists in this case.

~~~
victorNicollet
> if it is indeed his property he should have the right to do what he wants
> with it.

The general principle is that you can do what you want with your property, but
you must pay for any damages you cause in doing so.

The important question is whether you did cause those damages (maybe it was
someone else's fault, or maybe the damages were inevitable and would have
happened regardless of your action or inaction, or maybe you acted in good
faith like any other person would have) which gives judges plenty to think
about.

~~~
grundee
A better way to frame this would be to consider if the artists were sculptors
who were allowed to leave their sculptures for free on this property. Pieces
of art that are not attached to the building make it more clear that
destroying the art would leave the building owner liable for damages.

Similarly, the artists who painted murals should have had the opportunity to
remove their property from the building, which seems to be what they are
arguing.

------
andyv
Very similar to the situation in "The Garden"
[http://www.thegardenmovie.com](http://www.thegardenmovie.com)

Basically, a property owner in South LA lets people grow gardens on his
otherwise unused property. After a while the owner decides to do something
else with the property. The gardeners react by trying to get city to exercise
eminent domain on the land. The owner ends up kicking everyone out of the
gardens and bulldozing everything.

Letting people use your property gives them the idea that they own it. With
the graffiti buildings, they apparently do.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Letting people use your property gives them the idea that they own it.

The idea may not be without legal support, see, generally, the legal concepts
of implied easements, prescriptive easements, and adverse possession.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yet more reasons to never, ever let people use your property for anything but
explicitly temporary purposes?

~~~
dragonwriter
I would say, not to let people use your property for aextended period in a way
you are uncomfortable with becoming an entitlement, except with an explicit
and explicitly revocable grant of permission delineating what is allowed.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Like, a normal lease agreement.

------
poster123
If you own a building you have the right to demolish it and erect a new one.
Even if you let someone put graffiti on the walls, that is not a contract to
let the graffiti stay there forever.

~~~
victorNicollet
The question here was not "forever", it was "in the middle of the night, just
before the court could reach a decision" instead of "when the building is
demolished ten months in the future".

------
cooper12
Wow, the title really buries the lead here and I see no comments here talking
about how this wasn't any ordinary building: it was the 5pointz
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Pointz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Pointz))!
Not only that, this wasn't illegal graffiti, but rather murals that were
originally sanctioned. When the landlord wanted to demolish the site, the
artists went to the courts and the court was going to make a decision, but the
landlord went ahead and painted over them a day before the decision.

------
r00fus
FTA: "Wolkoff has been singularly unrepentant."

A book comes to mind -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_\(novel\))

Like the protagonist in the book, the owner had plenty of chance to smooth it
over or explain his actions but decided his actions and rights were arbitrary.
The courts would likely have seen things his way, but in the end if he's going
to phone it in, they have power as well.

------
socalnate1
This is a scenario where the headline sounds outrageous, but then you read the
details in the actual article and it actually makes sense.

~~~
anonyx69
Graffiti typically means "illegal", so that's why the headline sounds
outrageous. 5 Pointz was more of a "graffiti museum", with substantial
cultural significance. It was a nice piece of news to see for a change. I was
heartbroken when they whitewashed that building.

~~~
Caveman_Coder
So I guess the owner doesn't really "own" the building if enough people come
and draw pictures on the side of it then...

~~~
shaki-dora
In this case, the owner rented out studios to artists for years, and
permitted/encouraged them to paint on the walls. He also designated different
walls as "permanent" and "temporary" spaces. All that points to a contractual
relationship between the owner and the artists. Remember: contracts don't need
to be writing.

It's also not entirely clear if the property owner was ever the owner of the
art itself. There's a difference between posession and ownership, and while
the former is 90% of the latter, that leaves 10% up for grabs. From this pov,
the case is maybe comparable to someone finding a Picasso that someone forgot
on their front yard, and immediately destroying it.

But, in general: yes, if your property somehow becomes valuable for society in
some way or another, that may entail new restrictions on your use. Landmark
and similar designations for historically valuable buildings come to mind.
When some endangered species starts breeding on your property, you may no
longer be able to turn it into a parking lot.

Property rights just aren't as absolute as people like to think, nor are they
not subject to change. It's obviously in society's interest to provide for
robust protections of private property because it creates incentives to own
stuff, and to be productive in order to do so. But these rights are just a
tool that has proven extremely useful to organise our economic activity. There
are always competing interests, and societies have to find a balance that
maximises total value while remaining fair to each individual.

~~~
victorNicollet
Yes.

The same principles would be at play if you were letting a friend store their
bike in your garage on weekdays. One tuesday in April you call them to say "I
need to paint the garage in June, come and get your bike". But they're out of
the country for the week, so the next day you throw away the bike.

You would have the legal right to clear out your garage, you had no signed
contract to rent out a space for your friend's bike, but the way in which you
did it caused your friend to lose their bike after you had given them a
reasonable expectation that they wouldn't, and you had no good reason not to
wait until the end of the week.

~~~
pkaye
What if the friend was out of the country for a week.. or a month... maybe
longer... how long before it would be right to throw away the bike?

~~~
victorNicollet
That's for a judge to say. My brain's ethical lobe suggests that as long as
the friend invested less effort in getting the bike out of your garage than
you invested keeping it in your garage, it's fine to throw it away.

------
yostrovs
What about the artists who covered up previously generated graffiti to display
their own? Will they be prosecuted?

~~~
victorNicollet
Artists drawing on temporary sections were expected to know that their
graffiti would be deleted according to schedule. The owner, on the other hand,
deleted graffiti in the permanent section without warning, ten months before
the section was expected to be torn down.

~~~
yostrovs
It sounds like the real owner of the walls was the guy setting the schedule of
who and when gets to paint said walls. The owner that holds the title to the
building has been reduced to one of the artists, if that, who should have
known better than to decide what to do with what is actually his own property.

~~~
victorNicollet
I don't understand what you're trying to say. It is a _good thing_ for the
owner to be able to willingly give up some of their rights over their
property. You wouldn't consider renting a home or office if the owner had the
right to kick all of your belongings out of their property, or change the lock
and hold them for ransom. The reason why "using someone else's property" can
work is precisely because the owner can credibly pledge not to use those
rights for a time.

This doesn't mean that you own that home or office.

~~~
yostrovs
I believe in contracts and I doubt there ever was a contract. This seems like
someone thought that these walls will be forever theirs, though it was just a
matter of a lenient landlord not caring too much about what was going on.

And because the landlord wasn't a dick in the first place, but was a nice guy
who let them use the walls he owned to display their art for free to a giant
audience, he now owes them $6.5 million!! These people have probably never
made $6.5 million between them.

~~~
victorNicollet
I'm not a native speaker so I'm not sure if it applies to the word "contract"
that you are using, but in France a "contrat" exists as soon as there is a
meeting of the minds. Writing it down and signing it makes it easier to prove
to a judge, but it's not necessary.

