I don't get it. Who is doing the forcing here. Is there some kind of law that you have to preserve graffiti if they are by banksy?
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.
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.
As I read it, I don't think anyone from the city council forced them to do anything, "could put a preservation order on the piece" doesn't mean they did.
It's all a bit unclear though what the exact situation is though and why they chose to spend £200,000 instead of £200 on some paint.
Given the later "it's their property and right to do with as they want" comment, I think something along those lines is more likely, but hard to be sure.
The reporting on all of this has not been of stellar quality.
I can't otherwise explain how the property owners are being held responsible for damage done to the mural.
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.
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
EDIT: -Chicago +California