NY Developer must pay $7mil verdict to 21 Hip-Hop/Graffiti Artists

Developers have lost an appeal against $6.7 million awarded to graffiti artists whose work they destroyed to make way for luxury condos in New York.



A federal appeals court upheld the 2018 decision by a judge that the spray paintings by 21 artists were 'wrongfully and willfully' destroyed.



The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Thursday that a judge was correct to award the damages against developers who destroyed the aerosol artwork in 2013.

The appeals court said the action violated the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which protects art which has gained recognition.

The Long Island City, Queens, graffiti site known as 5Pointz was a tourist attraction that drew thousands of spectators daily and formed a backdrop to the 2013 movie, 'Now You See Me'.



But the building’s owner Jerry Wolkoff whitewashed all the artwork in November 2013 and demolished the building the following year.



Construction work on luxury apartment blocks is now almost complete and is due to be finished this year.




In an opinion written by Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker of the 2nd Circuit, he said,

"Recent years, 'street art,' much of which is 'temporary,' has emerged as a major category of contemporary art... a Banksy painting at 5Pointz would have possessed recognised stature, even if it were temporary,'

the appeals court said.

(street artist Banksy has appearrd on Time magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people.)

Marie Cecile Flageul, a curator who worked with the 21 artists who will share the award, said the money would be split among artists in the US, Australia, Japan, Brazil and Colombia.

She said the appeals ruling demonstrated how far graffiti has come from the 1970s when many artists used it to express their anger:

'Now, it's a validated art form which is collected, acquired and showcased in museums and galleries around the world. Real estate entities in New York, Paris and London now look for ways to preserve graffiti art."

*********

Since 2002, walls at the 5Pointz site had contained more than 10,000 works of art as some of the renderings were temporary and were eventually painted over with the permission of the artists.



In 2013, developers seeking to capitalise on the rebirth of a once crime-ridden neighbourhood destroyed the artwork after banning artists from the area and refusing to let them recover work that could be removed.



The judge made the award higher than it otherwise would have been after concluding the destruction of the art was wilful because the artists were not given the three months the law allows to salvage their artwork.

He 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.

After the artists sued, the ruling followed a three-week trial where
US District Judge Frederic Block in Brooklyn concluded:

"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,"

"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..

'...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 also 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:
"I 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.

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

Judge 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".

Block added...

'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,'
'Wolkoff couldn't care less. As he callously testified..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.'



The artists said in a statement they were 'thankful and humbled by today's ruling.'

Wolkoff's lawyer, David Ebert, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.