N.Y. landlord ordered to pay $6.7M for destroying graffiti
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
> “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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The idea may not be without legal support, see, generally, the legal concepts of implied easements, prescriptive easements, and adverse possession.
Moral rights in works are big in Europe but were largely unrecognized in the U.S. until the passage of the above law. It's a kind of copyright, and like copyright generally not contingent on a contract to make it enforceable against someone.
A book comes to mind - 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.
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.
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.
This doesn't mean that you own that home or office.
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.