New York – Judge Awards Graffiti Artists $6.7M After Works Destroyed

    17

    New York – A judge awarded $6.7 million Monday to graffiti artists who sued after dozens of spray paintings were destroyed on the walls of dilapidated warehouse buildings torn down to make room for high-rise luxury residences.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    U.S. District Judge Frederic Block in Brooklyn said 45 of the 49 paintings were recognized works of art “wrongfully and willfully destroyed” by a remorseless landlord.

    Twenty-one aerosol artists had sued the owner of a Long Island City, Queens, site known as 5Pointz under the Visual Rights Act, a 1990 federal law that protects artists’ rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork. Their graffiti was painted over in 2013, and the buildings were torn down a year later.

    Before they vanished, the graffiti artworks became a tourist attraction, drawing thousands of spectators daily and forming a backdrop to the 2013 movie, “Now You See Me,” and a site for an Usher tour, the judge noted.

    All the while, the crime-ridden neighborhood gradually improved and it became the “world’s largest collection of quality outdoor aerosol art,” though a system set up by the artists meant some paintings were temporary while others were given permanent status, Block wrote.

    The ruling followed a three-week trial in November, when Block said the “respectful, articulate and credible” artists testified about “striking technical and artistic mastery and vision worthy of display in prominent museums if not on the walls of 5Pointz.”

    He noted one artist came from London, another from rural West Virginia, while others were products of prestigious art schools. Some were self-taught.

    He said he was impressed with the breadth of the artists’ works and how many works “spoke to the social issues of our times.”

    Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings, had conceded he allowed the spray-paint artists to use the buildings as a canvas for decades but said they always knew they would be torn down someday. His lawyer, David Ebert, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

    The artists had once hoped to buy the properties, before their value soared to over $200 million.

    Block said he hoped the award would give teeth to a federal law that should have kept Wolkoff from demolishing them for at least 10 months, when he had all his permits.

    Artists then could have easily rescued some paintings from siding, plywood or sheet-rock before the rollers, spray machines and buckets of white paint arrived.

    “Wolkoff has been singularly unrepentant. He was given multiple opportunities to admit the whitewashing was a mistake, show remorse, or suggest he would do things differently if he had another chance,” Block said.

    “Wolkoff could care less. As he callously testified,” the judge said. “The sloppy, half-hearted nature of the whitewashing left the works easily visible under thin layers of cheap, white paint, reminding the plaintiffs on a daily basis what had happened. The mutilated works were visible by millions of people on the passing 7 train.”


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    17 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    6 years ago

    the artist s/b charged for trespassing and destroyng the original walls of the building

    ralph1527
    ralph1527
    6 years ago

    The sick world we live in .Wnder what the judge would have ruled ,had the property been his!!!!

    StevenWright
    Member
    StevenWright
    6 years ago

    Welcome to Sodom.

    AmYisroel
    AmYisroel
    6 years ago

    What an idiotic judge

    bsnow
    bsnow
    6 years ago

    Crazy liberals!

    MrSmith
    MrSmith
    6 years ago

    They should hang this Judge in Times Square together with those Grafitti Vandals

    6 years ago

    Only in America, kids, only in America!

    6 years ago

    Most probably a Hussain Obama judge.

    PaulinSaudi
    PaulinSaudi
    6 years ago

    Certainly a strange case.

    savtat
    savtat
    6 years ago

    Artists often revive “bad” neighborhoods. That has happened in the West Village, and Williamsburg, and Bed Sty….They bring something beautiful that the landowners benefit from. The landlord could have shown some respect and worked something out with them. They helped his land become much more valuable. And, it seems from the article that they had his permission. Next time, the artists should make the landlord sign an agreement!!!

    Zzzzz
    Zzzzz
    6 years ago

    Sick. Liberal judge,

    Liepa
    Liepa
    6 years ago

    Mr.Block, I can’t call you judge because isn’t a judge supposed to be wise.

    Alas, NOT !!!

    6 years ago

    Strange remarks in these comments, most ignoring (or never bothered to read) the sentence:

    > Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings, had conceded he allowed the spray-paint artists to use the buildings as a canvas for decades

    In any case, “Visual Rights Act” is 17 U.S. Code section 106.

    However, there is also section 113 (d) which voids the “Visual Rights Act” in a case where the owner of the building needs it removed. The only caveat is that the owner of building must notify the author of the impending situation to allow the author up to 90 days to remove it .So I would imagine the legality of this verdict depends on whether or not the owner notified the artist in writing 90 days before the destruction.

    MyThreeCents
    MyThreeCents
    6 years ago

    Ridiculous! The artists were trespassing. They should be sued