Graffiti https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/t2766 Runboard| Graffiti en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:41:23 +0000 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:41:23 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36230,from=rss#post36230https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36230,from=rss#post36230quote:Were the users of the IPhone legally allowed to delete that content? Or sell or throw their phones away with it still on the phone? If so, it's not quite analogous to what happened in this case. its not analogous in as much as U2 downloaded a COPY of the art (one of possibly millions of such copies) as opposed to the art on a wall which is an irreplaceable unique original. Obviously there is a difference between destroying a $5 print of the Mona Lisa that you dont own and destroying the original which you dont own ~(and Im not talking about monetary value here)nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:54:21 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36216,from=rss#post36216https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36216,from=rss#post36216quote:Apple and U2 did this a couple of years ago when they 'gave' every one (without first asking if you wanted it) a free down load of a U2 album and that is exactly analogous. It was still your IPhone but U2 still owned that part of the content that they and Apple decided to automatically down load on to it.-mais Were the users of the IPhone legally allowed to delete that content? Or sell or throw their phones away with it still on the phone? If so, it's not quite analogous to what happened in this case. Isn't the reality that U2 retained ownership of the original songs and the right to make copies of them but not the actual content of those IPhones? It's very difficult to see how they could have owned the content of anyone else's phone. Does an architect own a building based on his design for that building being used in its construction? If so, I bet that would be news to a lot of building owners. Maybe when any of those buildings are torn down the architect or his estate needs to be paid for his art being destroyed. Architectural drawings can be just as much art as paintings. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:17:02 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36201,from=rss#post36201https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36201,from=rss#post36201Not the same, a automated Authorized quote:download is NOT the same as YOU recording for first YOUR use and possible sale or even free distribution which IS copyright infringement. PLEASE read the post!!!!! I own an Iphone (which is analogous to me owning a wall) U2 (an artist) place their art on my Iphone without my consent (analogous to painting graffiti on my wall) I still own the Iphone (or wall) but I do not own the U2 music(or painting)nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:53:53 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36193,from=rss#post36193https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36193,from=rss#post36193Not the same, a automated Authorized download is NOT the same as YOU recording for first YOUR use and possible sale or even free distribution which IS copyright infringement.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:40:29 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36115,from=rss#post36115https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36115,from=rss#post36115Since they are combined together how is that legally possible? Hey! I dont write the laws!! quote:that is a very different situation from the artist taking your CD without your permission and using it to record their music. Apple and U2 did this a couple of years ago when they 'gave' every one (without first asking if you wanted it) a free down load of a U2 album and that is exactly analogous. It was still your IPhone but U2 still owned that part of the content that they and Apple decided to automatically down load on to it. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/oct/15/u2-bono-issues-apology-for-apple-itunes-album-downloadnondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:10:59 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36111,from=rss#post36111https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36111,from=rss#post36111quote:so from where does this 'legal stand point' derive?-mais What legal standing exists for ownership? If someone uses something that belongs to someone else to generate their "art" what law states that the result is owned by the artist? quote:you would own the art but not the medium. Since they are combined together how is that legally possible? quote:We are back to my using a blank CD that I own to illegally copy music made by some one else - I own the CD but they still own the music Yes, but that is a very different situation from the artist taking your CD without your permission and using it to record their music. Your ownership of that CD does not go away merely because someone put something on it. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:43:29 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36107,from=rss#post36107https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36107,from=rss#post36107Is graffiti legal? No matter how "artistic" it is defiling a building.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Yobbo)Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:46:32 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36085,from=rss#post36085https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36085,from=rss#post36085I dont care which law it falls under the essence is the same - you own the medium but not the artnondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:43:47 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36079,from=rss#post36079https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36079,from=rss#post36079Your pretext falls under copyright infringement. To knowingly reproduce another's art/music/video without permission is against at least US copyright law.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:35:35 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36059,from=rss#post36059https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36059,from=rss#post36059quote:I'm not referring to any law. "From a legal standpoint there was no owner of the alleged art. " so from where does this 'legal stand point' derive? quote:If I sculpted a statue of Zeus out of some object on your property such as a lamp post or a tree that you owned would I then own that statue of Zeus? you would own the art but not the medium. We are back to my using a blank CD that I own to illegally copy music made by some one else - I own the CD but they still own the musicnondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:20:41 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36058,from=rss#post36058https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36058,from=rss#post36058quote:From a legal standpoint there was no owner of the alleged art. The owner of the building only owned the building, not the art. And the artists did not own it either because they used someone else's property to display it. There was no ownership of that particular art therefore the judge's ruling was in error. No owner could have violated the Visual Rights Act because in this case there wasn't one. quote:under what law or set of laws does the artist not own the art?-mais Under what set of laws would they own the art? If I sculpted a statue of Zeus out of some object on your property such as a lamp post or a tree that you owned would I then own that statue of Zeus? Being the creator is not necessarily the same thing as being the owner of a piece of art and doesn't automatically endow the artist with any special rights. quote:I dont follow your reasoning and cannot find the law that you are obliquely referring to. I'm not referring to any law. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:50:07 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36056,from=rss#post36056https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36056,from=rss#post36056quote:From a legal standpoint there was no owner of the alleged art. The owner of the building only owned the building, not the art. And the artists did not own it either because they used someone else's property to display it. There was no ownership of that particular art therefore the judge's ruling was in error. No owner could have violated the Visual Rights Act because in this case there wasn't one. under what law or set of laws does the artist not own the art? I dont follow your reasoning and cannot find the law that you are obliquely referring to . nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:11:47 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36055,from=rss#post36055https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36055,from=rss#post36055quote:mais oui wrote: the Graffiti artist 'Banksy's work sells for £hundreds of thousands •KEEP IT SPOTLESS (£1.3million) ... •SUBMERGED PHONE BOOTH (£722,500) ... •SIMPLE INTELLIGENCE TESTING (£636,500) ... •HAPPY SHOPPER (£506,500) ... •GIRL WITH RED BALLOON (£500,000) ... •REMBRANDT (£398,500) ... •THINK TANK (£397,000) ... •VANDALISED PHONE BOX (£361,900) Whether something sells for lots of money does not determine its artistic merit or status. It just means that someone, sometimes an investor, was willing to pay big money for it. quote:If I record a piece of music onto a blank CD who owns the music? Depends on who created the music in the first place. If it's an original composition of yours you do. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:33:35 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36053,from=rss#post36053https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36053,from=rss#post36053quote:Yobbo wrote: The law in question needs a reevaluation to take incidents like this into account. Graffiti should be seen as an offence subject to a fine, not a work of art stopping the owner from destroying it. If someone breaks into someone's home and draws a painting on the wall of their living room does that intruder own that painting? From a legal standpoint there was no owner of the alleged art. The owner of the building only owned the building, not the art. And the artists did not own it either because they used someone else's property to display it. There was no ownership of that particular art therefore the judge's ruling was in error. No owner could have violated the Visual Rights Act because in this case there wasn't one. Whether the ruling stands or not is another matter. Erroneous rulings can stand because of the legal power of the rulers provided they are not overturned by ones with a higher authority to do so. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:27:04 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36045,from=rss#post36045https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36045,from=rss#post36045the Graffiti artist 'Banksy's work sells for £hundreds of thousands •KEEP IT SPOTLESS (£1.3million) ... •SUBMERGED PHONE BOOTH (£722,500) ... •SIMPLE INTELLIGENCE TESTING (£636,500) ... •HAPPY SHOPPER (£506,500) ... •GIRL WITH RED BALLOON (£500,000) ... •REMBRANDT (£398,500) ... •THINK TANK (£397,000) ... •VANDALISED PHONE BOX (£361,900) If I record a piece of music onto a blank CD who owns the music?nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:01:34 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36044,from=rss#post36044https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36044,from=rss#post36044The law in question needs a reevaluation to take incidents like this into account. Graffiti should be seen as an offence subject to a fine, not a work of art stopping the owner from destroying it. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Yobbo)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:52:18 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36042,from=rss#post36042https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36042,from=rss#post36042quote:apparently there's a 1990 federal law that protects artists' rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork. It's called the Visual Rights Act. It's in the article that Cooter posted. Snowpixie, you dont expect Cooter to break the habits of a lifetime and read/understand his own source material do you?nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:15:00 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36039,from=rss#post36039https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36039,from=rss#post36039I can see arresting the claimed artists now in that they vandalized property with Graffiti and are claiming to have been those perpetrators to gain monetary reward.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:56:01 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36037,from=rss#post36037https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36037,from=rss#post36037quote:snowpixie wrote: apparently there's a 1990 federal law that protects artists' rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork. It's called the Visual Rights Act. It's in the article that Cooter posted. And it was still overreaching his authority by a judge. The owner of the building did not own those paintings nor did he commission the work. He did own the building and had a right to tear that building down. It was up to the owners of those works of art to remove or copy them before that happened, not the building owner. And if there was no legitimate owner of those paintings how can anyone be legally responsible under the Visual Rights Act for what happened to them? That law refers to owners not being allowed to destroy or modify works of art. This was just more legal BS involving some men, the alleged artists, being favored by a judge and awarded a large sum of money. If it had been a bunch of female artists they would have been laughed out of court. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:50:34 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36029,from=rss#post36029https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36029,from=rss#post36029Yet the buildings were DANGEROUS and removed for renewal of the area. How can that illicit artwork be considered as salvable if the buildings were falling down? This is an over step of intent as to law.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:28:28 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36024,from=rss#post36024https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36024,from=rss#post36024apparently there's a 1990 federal law that protects artists' rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork. It's called the Visual Rights Act. It's in the article that Cooter posted. nondisclosed_email@example.com (snowpixie)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:15:31 +0000 Re: Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36022,from=rss#post36022https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36022,from=rss#post36022If the artists were not hired to place the art on the building why was the building owner responsible for paying them any money if the paintings were destroyed? Sounds like the judge was overreaching his legal authority. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:12:12 +0000 Graffitihttps://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36008,from=rss#post36008https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p36008,from=rss#post36008A court awarded $6.7m to graffiti artists after the dilapidated buildings they had adorned were demolished. If is illicitly placed how is it protected to this level? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-awards-graffiti-artists-dollar67m-after-works-destroyed/ar-BBJ3gZC?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=spartanntp https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/graffitinondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:23:30 +0000