Suppose I own a cafe, and Andy Warhol strolls by one day and, without permission, sprays a small stencil of Marilyn Monroe on my outside wall.
Fantastic! Makes the place look good, brings in free advertising, shoots up the property value etc.
A year later, Roy Lichtenstein comes by and, also without permission, sprays a small stencil of the worried girl on my wall. Man, things just keep getting better!
Another year later, and some nobody in a lumber jacket comes by and does a third-rate stencil of Eddy The Head smoking a giant reefer on my wall.
In whatever civil or criminal legal measures I might pursue against the heavy-metal hipster, would his lawyers be able to weaken my position by pointing out that I did not pursue similar measures against Warhol and Lichtenstein when they vandalized my wall?
I don’t think so. If someone decorates your wall without your permission in a way you happen to like, I don’t see why leaving it up would imply permission for others to decorate your wall in a way you don’t like.
Some years ago we needed to have some roof soffits replaced (owing to some redecorating done without our permission by a tree branch during a storm). We hired a company who came and fixed things while we were away. Except that when we came home it was clear they hadn’t. Turns out they got the address wrong and replaced soffits on a house down the street instead. We don’t know the owners of the other house and I suspect to this day they have no idea that they have new soffits on part of their roof. But even assuming they did know and decided to keep this unintentional gift from the soffit company, it wouldn’t license anyone else to make unauthorized changes to their house.
Suppose I own a cafe, and Andy Warhol strolls by one day and, without permission, sprays a small stencil of Marilyn Monroe on my outside wall.
Fantastic! Makes the place look good, brings in free advertising, shoots up the property value etc.
A year later, Roy Lichtenstein comes by and, also without permission, sprays a small stencil of the worried girl on my wall. Man, things just keep getting better!
Another year later, and some nobody in a lumber jacket comes by and does a third-rate stencil of Eddy The Head smoking a giant reefer on my wall.
In whatever civil or criminal legal measures I might pursue against the heavy-metal hipster, would his lawyers be able to weaken my position by pointing out that I did not pursue similar measures against Warhol and Lichtenstein when they vandalized my wall?
I don’t think so. If someone decorates your wall without your permission in a way you happen to like, I don’t see why leaving it up would imply permission for others to decorate your wall in a way you don’t like.
Some years ago we needed to have some roof soffits replaced (owing to some redecorating done without our permission by a tree branch during a storm). We hired a company who came and fixed things while we were away. Except that when we came home it was clear they hadn’t. Turns out they got the address wrong and replaced soffits on a house down the street instead. We don’t know the owners of the other house and I suspect to this day they have no idea that they have new soffits on part of their roof. But even assuming they did know and decided to keep this unintentional gift from the soffit company, it wouldn’t license anyone else to make unauthorized changes to their house.
Yeah, that makes sense. But I had heard somewhere that if eg. Company A has a logo, and Company B starts using that logo without permission but Company A takes no legal action, Company A's lack of action could undermine their legal standing if they later try to stop other companies from using the logo(*).
So, assuming that's true, I was wondering it there might be a similar principle in the case of physical property.
(*) I don't know all the details, but I think something like that might have happened with Robert Crumb and his Keep On Truckin' logo in the 1970s.
Suppose I own a cafe, and Andy Warhol strolls by one day and, without permission, sprays a small stencil of Marilyn Monroe on my outside wall.
Fantastic! Makes the place look good, brings in free advertising, shoots up the property value etc.
A year later, Roy Lichtenstein comes by and, also without permission, sprays a small stencil of the worried girl on my wall. Man, things just keep getting better!
Another year later, and some nobody in a lumber jacket comes by and does a third-rate stencil of Eddy The Head smoking a giant reefer on my wall.
In whatever civil or criminal legal measures I might pursue against the heavy-metal hipster, would his lawyers be able to weaken my position by pointing out that I did not pursue similar measures against Warhol and Lichtenstein when they vandalized my wall?
I don’t think so. If someone decorates your wall without your permission in a way you happen to like, I don’t see why leaving it up would imply permission for others to decorate your wall in a way you don’t like.
Some years ago we needed to have some roof soffits replaced (owing to some redecorating done without our permission by a tree branch during a storm). We hired a company who came and fixed things while we were away. Except that when we came home it was clear they hadn’t. Turns out they got the address wrong and replaced soffits on a house down the street instead. We don’t know the owners of the other house and I suspect to this day they have no idea that they have new soffits on part of their roof. But even assuming they did know and decided to keep this unintentional gift from the soffit company, it wouldn’t license anyone else to make unauthorized changes to their house.
Yeah, that makes sense. But I had heard somewhere that if eg. Company A has a logo, and Company B starts using that logo without permission but Company A takes no legal action, Company A's lack of action could undermine their legal standing if they later try to stop other companies from using the logo(*).
That’s a very different scenario legally speaking, and the rights involved are of a different nature.
Suppose I own a cafe, and Andy Warhol strolls by one day and, without permission, sprays a small stencil of Marilyn Monroe on my outside wall.
Fantastic! Makes the place look good, brings in free advertising, shoots up the property value etc.
A year later, Roy Lichtenstein comes by and, also without permission, sprays a small stencil of the worried girl on my wall. Man, things just keep getting better!
Another year later, and some nobody in a lumber jacket comes by and does a third-rate stencil of Eddy The Head smoking a giant reefer on my wall.
In whatever civil or criminal legal measures I might pursue against the heavy-metal hipster, would his lawyers be able to weaken my position by pointing out that I did not pursue similar measures against Warhol and Lichtenstein when they vandalized my wall?
I don’t think so. If someone decorates your wall without your permission in a way you happen to like, I don’t see why leaving it up would imply permission for others to decorate your wall in a way you don’t like.
Some years ago we needed to have some roof soffits replaced (owing to some redecorating done without our permission by a tree branch during a storm). We hired a company who came and fixed things while we were away. Except that when we came home it was clear they hadn’t. Turns out they got the address wrong and replaced soffits on a house down the street instead. We don’t know the owners of the other house and I suspect to this day they have no idea that they have new soffits on part of their roof. But even assuming they did know and decided to keep this unintentional gift from the soffit company, it wouldn’t license anyone else to make unauthorized changes to their house.
Yeah, that makes sense. But I had heard somewhere that if eg. Company A has a logo, and Company B starts using that logo without permission but Company A takes no legal action, Company A's lack of action could undermine their legal standing if they later try to stop other companies from using the logo(*).
That’s a very different scenario legally speaking, and the rights involved are of a different nature.
Okay, thanks. I assume the difference has something to do with the tangibility of physical property vs. the intangibility of intellectual property.
Graffiti painters have a sense of entitlement that impells them to daub other people's property. I find that difficult. Other public performers such as buskers eventually leave, but a bit of graffiti remains.
More generally, there's a maxim in English and Welsh property law, "Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit", '"whatever is affixed to the soil yields to the soil", i.e. becomes part of it. Whether they like it or not, a person who paints a picture on someone else's wall is taken to have given it to them, to do with it as they wish. Even it the painter were not a person known to seek anonymity, the painter forfeits any say so or title in it.
For all @A Feminine Force 's protestations, that she, Banksy or anyone else might regard it as artistic or a political protest or whatever, is largely irrelevant. It's all just another variant of , 'I may think I've got something to say, but that does not oblige anyone else to listen'.
There has been an argument recently where I live about a large number of sentimental padlocks various people have attached to a footbridge. They have got so heavy that it is endangering the bridge. Should the padlocks be removed? (Yes). If so, should they be preserved in some way, made into a work of art at public expense or sold to be melted down as scrap. Fellow shipmates may not be surprised that I strongly favour the last of those options,.
Suppose I own a cafe, and Andy Warhol strolls by one day and, without permission, sprays a small stencil of Marilyn Monroe on my outside wall.
Fantastic! Makes the place look good, brings in free advertising, shoots up the property value etc.
A year later, Roy Lichtenstein comes by and, also without permission, sprays a small stencil of the worried girl on my wall. Man, things just keep getting better!
Another year later, and some nobody in a lumber jacket comes by and does a third-rate stencil of Eddy The Head smoking a giant reefer on my wall.
In whatever civil or criminal legal measures I might pursue against the heavy-metal hipster, would his lawyers be able to weaken my position by pointing out that I did not pursue similar measures against Warhol and Lichtenstein when they vandalized my wall?
I don’t think so. If someone decorates your wall without your permission in a way you happen to like, I don’t see why leaving it up would imply permission for others to decorate your wall in a way you don’t like.
Some years ago we needed to have some roof soffits replaced (owing to some redecorating done without our permission by a tree branch during a storm). We hired a company who came and fixed things while we were away. Except that when we came home it was clear they hadn’t. Turns out they got the address wrong and replaced soffits on a house down the street instead. We don’t know the owners of the other house and I suspect to this day they have no idea that they have new soffits on part of their roof. But even assuming they did know and decided to keep this unintentional gift from the soffit company, it wouldn’t license anyone else to make unauthorized changes to their house.
Yeah, that makes sense. But I had heard somewhere that if eg. Company A has a logo, and Company B starts using that logo without permission but Company A takes no legal action, Company A's lack of action could undermine their legal standing if they later try to stop other companies from using the logo(*).
That’s a very different scenario legally speaking, and the rights involved are of a different nature.
Okay, thanks. I assume the difference has something to do with the tangibility of physical property vs. the intangibility of intellectual property.
I don’t think it’s really tangibility vs. intangibility per se. After all, adverse possession—the idea that if a property owner, knowingly or unknowingly, allows another to possess their real property for a defined period of time without seeking ejectment, the property owner may not only lose the right to seek ejectment but may also lose legal ownership of the property—is a long-standing feature of many legal systems.
I think it’s more about licenses/permission and about commerce vs. real property.
I remember studying adverse possession in law school - it’s one of those things that’s kind of fascinating even though highly unlikely ever to be part of most people’s practice. (I remember someone in first year joking that they wanted to open a practice devoted entirely to finder’s law…) In practice in Canada it seems to be restricted to cases where somebody drew a property boundary in the wrong place a long time ago and everyone has come to rely on it. I remember my father talked to a lawyer once about a neighbour’s fence that a previous owner had probably built slightly on to our property 40 years earlier and the lawyer said it probably wasn’t worth pursuing in part because of adverse possession.
I asked Ms Marsupial about trademarks… it was one of her favourite topics in law school and she actually worked one summer at a Hong Kong firm that did a lot of trademark law. I gather the connection to use is basically about the function of trademarks in protecting reputation… if you’re not using a trademark for long enough, it’s no longer doing any work for you and shouldn’t be allowed to just sit on it and prevent others from using it.
I asked Ms Marsupial about trademarks… it was one of her favourite topics in law school and she actually worked one summer at a Hong Kong firm that did a lot of trademark law. I gather the connection to use is basically about the function of trademarks in protecting reputation… if you’re not using a trademark for long enough, it’s no longer doing any work for you and shouldn’t be allowed to just sit on it and prevent others from using it.
That’s a good way of putting it, I think, and gets at what I couldn’t quite put my finger on. Likewise, if you’re not protecting your sole right to use a trademark by challenging unauthorized use, you are not actually treating as something that represents you alone.
My experience of adverse possession, both in law school and the real world, is similar to yours. I can imagine, though, how centuries ago it might have been more commonly encountered.
For some reason I am reminded of a time not too long ago when many barns across the US were painted red and carried slogans: "Chew Mail Pouch Tobacco". The owners signed off on this as they got their barns painted for free.
For all @A Feminine Force 's protestations, that she, Banksy or anyone else might regard it as artistic or a political protest or whatever, is largely irrelevant. It's all just another variant of , 'I may think I've got something to say, but that does not oblige anyone else to listen'.
There has been an argument recently where I live about a large number of sentimental padlocks various people have attached to a footbridge. They have got so heavy that it is endangering the bridge. Should the padlocks be removed? (Yes). If so, should they be preserved in some way, made into a work of art at public expense or sold to be melted down as scrap. Fellow shipmates may not be surprised that I strongly favour the last of those options.
I think the jury's still out on whether a load of slowly accumulating, slowly corroding padlocks constitute a piece of art.
I suggest that public authorities are guilty of being at least inconsistent about graffiti. They appear content to leave some of it in place. What criteria are they using to decide whether or not a particular piece should be removed? Why aren't all such instances of criminal damage treated the same way?
In the case of Bansky and other famous graffitists, their works can make locations desirable places to visit. I think it likely that Bristol City Council have considered how much his creations are worth to Bristol's tourist industry.
I suggest that public authorities are guilty of being at least inconsistent about graffiti. They appear content to leave some of it in place. What criteria are they using to decide whether or not a particular piece should be removed? Why aren't all such instances of criminal damage treated the same way?
In the case of Bansky and other famous graffitists, their works can make locations desirable places to visit. I think it likely that Bristol City Council have considered how much his creations are worth to Bristol's tourist industry.
And you answered your question. Banksy's work enjoys wide popularity. Someone's scrawled and misspelled obscenity does not.
I'd suggest it also makes a difference whether what got graffiti applied to it was a painted wall covered in elderly stucco, or finished blocks of portland stone.
I'd suggest it also makes a difference whether what got graffiti applied to it was a painted wall covered in elderly stucco, or finished blocks of portland stone.
And whether the graffiti could be considered to enhance the structure to which it was applied, or whether the graffiti could be said to undermine the public’s trust in what goes on that structure, such as graffiti on a courthouse wall that criticizes the justice handed out inside that courthouse.
To be sure, any such criticism may be warranted, in whole or in part. But if that graffiti is allowed to remain, then the powers that be are reasonably seen to endorse and adopt that message, communicating to anyone who comes to the courts that justice well may not be available inside. And that communication happens even if measures are being taken to address the substance of the criticism.
If the point of the graffiti/art is to call attention to a perceived societal problem, then surely the appropriate response to that graffiti/art is to meaningfully consider whether there is a problem and, if so, what to do about it, not to focus on whether the graffiti/art should be preserved for tourists or others to see.
Surely. And yet, it might be a person's particular duty to make a decision on whether to get the paint cans out or not. For example, the person in charge of the property...
I suggest that public authorities are guilty of being at least inconsistent about graffiti. They appear content to leave some of it in place. What criteria are they using to decide whether or not a particular piece should be removed? Why aren't all such instances of criminal damage treated the same way?
In the UK there are various Northern Ireland shaped holes in enforcement, some for good reason, some less so.
If In the case of Bansky and other famous graffitists, their works can make locations desirable places to visit. I think it likely that Bristol City Council have considered how much his creations are worth to Bristol's tourist industry.
Ah, but this gets me back to my Warhol/Lichtenstein/Eddy hypothetical, though maybe more in a sociopolitical than legal way.
So, okay...
The Widgeton Public Library gets a few first-rate but unsolicited murals painted on it, the town doesn't call the cops, the murals become a big tourism draw, featured on travel brochures, everyone celebrates.
Later, Widgeton Library gets a few more first-rate but unsolicited murals, no cops called etc etc, same as before.
Later still, Widgeton Library gets a fourth-rate and unsolicited painting of the 1970s Farrah Fawcett poster painted on it. This time, they get out the CCTV footage, send it to the cops, and, following the arrest of the suspect, press charges.
I wonder what the police and the courts would think about being asked to enforce the anti-vandalism laws on such a selective basis, by a government that most of the time seems happy to let the offenses slide.
I wonder what the police and the courts would think about being asked to enforce the anti-vandalism laws on such a selective basis, by a government that most of the time seems happy to let the offenses slide.
This last bit—“most of the time”—assumes facts not in evidence. Just because Widgetown Library has only these examples of graffiti doesn’t mean that they’re the only incidents of graffiti on public property in Widgetown, or that other incidents have not been investigated or led to charges.
That aside, a prosecutor can generally pursue charges even if the property owner doesn’t want to.
And the hypothetical is conflating decisions about whether to prosecute and decisions about whether to remove the graffiti. Meanwhile, I suspect not calling the cops is not an anctual option. It’s a public building; there well may be a legal obligation to call the police, and even if there’s not, I suspect they’ll be there whether they were called or not.
In the case of Bansky and other famous graffitists, their works can make locations desirable places to visit. I think it likely that Bristol City Council have considered how much his creations are worth to Bristol's tourist industry.
Ah, but this gets me back to my Warhol/Lichtenstein/Eddy hypothetical, though maybe more in a sociopolitical than legal way.
So, okay
...
I wonder what the police and the courts would think about being asked to enforce the anti-vandalism laws on such a selective basis, by a government that most of the time seems happy to let the offenses slide.
I think that "most of the time" is debatable. This millennium, thanks to Tony Blair and his chums (arguably), the UK has taken a turn towards the criminalisation of graffiti. And we now, as a consequence, appear to be in the situation of having legal graffiti and illegal graffiti, or of sanctioned and unsanctioned graffiti.
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 became Britain's latest anti-graffiti legislation. In August 2004, the Keep Britain Tidy campaign issued a press release calling for zero tolerance of graffiti
...
To back the campaign, 123 Members of Parliament (MPs) (including then Prime Minister Tony Blair), signed a charter which stated: "Graffiti is not art, it's crime. On behalf of my constituents, I will do all I can to rid our community of this problem."
In the UK, city councils have the power to take action against the owner of any property that has been defaced under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005) or, in certain cases, the Highways Act. This is often used against owners of property that are complacent in allowing protective boards to be defaced so long as the property is not damaged.
In July 2008, a conspiracy charge was used to convict graffitists for the first time.
...
Some councils, like those of Stroud and Loerrach, provide approved areas in the town where graffitists can showcase their talents, including underpasses, car parks, and walls that might otherwise prove a target for the "spray and run".
Returning to an earlier point: if it survives long enough, a significant number of people in the UK appear willing to support the preservation and documentation of historical graffiti (eg, through the National Trust). I haven't yet found examples of buildings or structures given listed status because they bear historic graffiti, but I wouldn't be surprised.
On the other side of the coin I recall a street art mural that had been commissioned by the City of Toronto for something like 250K to enliven the dreary Dufferin/Queen street underpass, (or some other equally dank and gloomy walkway) only for it to be scrubbed by a zealous other branch of City Hall administration.
On the other side of the coin I recall a street art mural that had been commissioned by the City of Toronto for something like 250K to enliven the dreary Dufferin/Queen street underpass, (or some other equally dank and gloomy walkway) only for it to be scrubbed by a zealous other branch of City Hall administration.
AFF
Oops. We do have quite a lot of authorized street art in such places now which suggests the right hand and the left hand have somehow found a way of communicating with each other. Not sure what’s at Queen and Dufferin these days other than to say that the PTB finally found a way of getting Dufferin to connect directly to Queen under that rail bridge (it didn’t used to). Without really knowing any more about the situation I wonder if the street art in question might have been a casualty of the (badly needed) redesign of that intersection.
On the other side of the coin I recall a street art mural that had been commissioned by the City of Toronto for something like 250K to enliven the dreary Dufferin/Queen street underpass, (or some other equally dank and gloomy walkway) only for it to be scrubbed by a zealous other branch of City Hall administration.
AFF
Oops. We do have quite a lot of authorized street art in such places now which suggests the right hand and the left hand have somehow found a way of communicating with each other. Not sure what’s at Queen and Dufferin these days other than to say that the PTB finally found a way of getting Dufferin to connect directly to Queen under that rail bridge (it didn’t used to). Without really knowing any more about the situation I wonder if the street art in question might have been a casualty of the (badly needed) redesign of that intersection.
No this was long before that piece of construction. I remember it was specifically commissioned to reflect and celebrate the "multicultural" composition of the surrounding neighborhood. I saw it with my own eyes when it was half scrubbed. What a pathetic piece it looked with patches of gray paint.
Right now if you look at google streetview, there is some bland kind of faux cut stone veneer and obligatory gang related tags. A definite improvement. Not.
Ah I see. Looks like they were aiming for something high-concept that didn’t quite work out. Underpass Park is more like what I had in mind - you can search on Google maps and the street art will show up.
In the case of Bansky and other famous graffitists, their works can make locations desirable places to visit. I think it likely that Bristol City Council have considered how much his creations are worth to Bristol's tourist industry.
Ah, but this gets me back to my Warhol/Lichtenstein/Eddy hypothetical, though maybe more in a sociopolitical than legal way.
So, okay
...
I wonder what the police and the courts would think about being asked to enforce the anti-vandalism laws on such a selective basis, by a government that most of the time seems happy to let the offenses slide.
I think that "most of the time" is debatable. This millennium, thanks to Tony Blair and his chums (arguably), the UK has taken a turn towards the criminalisation of graffiti. And we now, as a consequence, appear to be in the situation of having legal graffiti and illegal graffiti, or of sanctioned and unsanctioned graffiti.
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 became Britain's latest anti-graffiti legislation. In August 2004, the Keep Britain Tidy campaign issued a press release calling for zero tolerance of graffiti
...
To back the campaign, 123 Members of Parliament (MPs) (including then Prime Minister Tony Blair), signed a charter which stated: "Graffiti is not art, it's crime. On behalf of my constituents, I will do all I can to rid our community of this problem."
In the UK, city councils have the power to take action against the owner of any property that has been defaced under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005) or, in certain cases, the Highways Act. This is often used against owners of property that are complacent in allowing protective boards to be defaced so long as the property is not damaged.
In July 2008, a conspiracy charge was used to convict graffitists for the first time.
...
Some councils, like those of Stroud and Loerrach, provide approved areas in the town where graffitists can showcase their talents, including underpasses, car parks, and walls that might otherwise prove a target for the "spray and run".
Returning to an earlier point: if it survives long enough, a significant number of people in the UK appear willing to support the preservation and documentation of historical graffiti (eg, through the National Trust). I haven't yet found examples of buildings or structures given listed status because they bear historic graffiti, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Romans go home!
I was in a castle the other week that had graffiti dating back to the early 1800s. I think there's somewhere in Kent that has special Napoleonic-era graffiti.
The former was people's names carved into the stone, showing that idiots have been trying to impress their women by carving their names into the stone for hundreds of years. The latter, if I recall, gave historians insights into life, as I think it included images and poetry.
Of course the difficulty of assessing these things is that the value of public buildings and ruins has changed over time. At one time they were largely ignored as historical buildings and instead were highly romantic, moss-covered mysterious messages from the past. It was only really in the 20th century that their historical value was truly appreciated and that restoration was attempted.
Sorry I got a bit diverted into a different rant there
Comments
I don’t think so. If someone decorates your wall without your permission in a way you happen to like, I don’t see why leaving it up would imply permission for others to decorate your wall in a way you don’t like.
Some years ago we needed to have some roof soffits replaced (owing to some redecorating done without our permission by a tree branch during a storm). We hired a company who came and fixed things while we were away. Except that when we came home it was clear they hadn’t. Turns out they got the address wrong and replaced soffits on a house down the street instead. We don’t know the owners of the other house and I suspect to this day they have no idea that they have new soffits on part of their roof. But even assuming they did know and decided to keep this unintentional gift from the soffit company, it wouldn’t license anyone else to make unauthorized changes to their house.
Yeah, that makes sense. But I had heard somewhere that if eg. Company A has a logo, and Company B starts using that logo without permission but Company A takes no legal action, Company A's lack of action could undermine their legal standing if they later try to stop other companies from using the logo(*).
So, assuming that's true, I was wondering it there might be a similar principle in the case of physical property.
(*) I don't know all the details, but I think something like that might have happened with Robert Crumb and his Keep On Truckin' logo in the 1970s.
Okay, thanks. I assume the difference has something to do with the tangibility of physical property vs. the intangibility of intellectual property.
More generally, there's a maxim in English and Welsh property law, "Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit", '"whatever is affixed to the soil yields to the soil", i.e. becomes part of it. Whether they like it or not, a person who paints a picture on someone else's wall is taken to have given it to them, to do with it as they wish. Even it the painter were not a person known to seek anonymity, the painter forfeits any say so or title in it.
For all @A Feminine Force 's protestations, that she, Banksy or anyone else might regard it as artistic or a political protest or whatever, is largely irrelevant. It's all just another variant of , 'I may think I've got something to say, but that does not oblige anyone else to listen'.
There has been an argument recently where I live about a large number of sentimental padlocks various people have attached to a footbridge. They have got so heavy that it is endangering the bridge. Should the padlocks be removed? (Yes). If so, should they be preserved in some way, made into a work of art at public expense or sold to be melted down as scrap. Fellow shipmates may not be surprised that I strongly favour the last of those options,.
I think it’s more about licenses/permission and about commerce vs. real property.
I asked Ms Marsupial about trademarks… it was one of her favourite topics in law school and she actually worked one summer at a Hong Kong firm that did a lot of trademark law. I gather the connection to use is basically about the function of trademarks in protecting reputation… if you’re not using a trademark for long enough, it’s no longer doing any work for you and shouldn’t be allowed to just sit on it and prevent others from using it.
My experience of adverse possession, both in law school and the real world, is similar to yours. I can imagine, though, how centuries ago it might have been more commonly encountered.
I suggest that public authorities are guilty of being at least inconsistent about graffiti. They appear content to leave some of it in place. What criteria are they using to decide whether or not a particular piece should be removed? Why aren't all such instances of criminal damage treated the same way?
In the case of Bansky and other famous graffitists, their works can make locations desirable places to visit. I think it likely that Bristol City Council have considered how much his creations are worth to Bristol's tourist industry.
And you answered your question. Banksy's work enjoys wide popularity. Someone's scrawled and misspelled obscenity does not.
I'd suggest it also makes a difference whether what got graffiti applied to it was a painted wall covered in elderly stucco, or finished blocks of portland stone.
To be sure, any such criticism may be warranted, in whole or in part. But if that graffiti is allowed to remain, then the powers that be are reasonably seen to endorse and adopt that message, communicating to anyone who comes to the courts that justice well may not be available inside. And that communication happens even if measures are being taken to address the substance of the criticism.
If the point of the graffiti/art is to call attention to a perceived societal problem, then surely the appropriate response to that graffiti/art is to meaningfully consider whether there is a problem and, if so, what to do about it, not to focus on whether the graffiti/art should be preserved for tourists or others to see.
In the UK there are various Northern Ireland shaped holes in enforcement, some for good reason, some less so.
Ah, but this gets me back to my Warhol/Lichtenstein/Eddy hypothetical, though maybe more in a sociopolitical than legal way.
So, okay...
The Widgeton Public Library gets a few first-rate but unsolicited murals painted on it, the town doesn't call the cops, the murals become a big tourism draw, featured on travel brochures, everyone celebrates.
Later, Widgeton Library gets a few more first-rate but unsolicited murals, no cops called etc etc, same as before.
Later still, Widgeton Library gets a fourth-rate and unsolicited painting of the 1970s Farrah Fawcett poster painted on it. This time, they get out the CCTV footage, send it to the cops, and, following the arrest of the suspect, press charges.
I wonder what the police and the courts would think about being asked to enforce the anti-vandalism laws on such a selective basis, by a government that most of the time seems happy to let the offenses slide.
That aside, a prosecutor can generally pursue charges even if the property owner doesn’t want to.
And the hypothetical is conflating decisions about whether to prosecute and decisions about whether to remove the graffiti. Meanwhile, I suspect not calling the cops is not an anctual option. It’s a public building; there well may be a legal obligation to call the police, and even if there’s not, I suspect they’ll be there whether they were called or not.
I think that "most of the time" is debatable. This millennium, thanks to Tony Blair and his chums (arguably), the UK has taken a turn towards the criminalisation of graffiti. And we now, as a consequence, appear to be in the situation of having legal graffiti and illegal graffiti, or of sanctioned and unsanctioned graffiti.
As wikipedia points out: Returning to an earlier point: if it survives long enough, a significant number of people in the UK appear willing to support the preservation and documentation of historical graffiti (eg, through the National Trust). I haven't yet found examples of buildings or structures given listed status because they bear historic graffiti, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Romans go home!
AFF
Oops. We do have quite a lot of authorized street art in such places now which suggests the right hand and the left hand have somehow found a way of communicating with each other. Not sure what’s at Queen and Dufferin these days other than to say that the PTB finally found a way of getting Dufferin to connect directly to Queen under that rail bridge (it didn’t used to). Without really knowing any more about the situation I wonder if the street art in question might have been a casualty of the (badly needed) redesign of that intersection.
No this was long before that piece of construction. I remember it was specifically commissioned to reflect and celebrate the "multicultural" composition of the surrounding neighborhood. I saw it with my own eyes when it was half scrubbed. What a pathetic piece it looked with patches of gray paint.
Right now if you look at google streetview, there is some bland kind of faux cut stone veneer and obligatory gang related tags. A definite improvement. Not.
AFF
I was in a castle the other week that had graffiti dating back to the early 1800s. I think there's somewhere in Kent that has special Napoleonic-era graffiti.
The former was people's names carved into the stone, showing that idiots have been trying to impress their women by carving their names into the stone for hundreds of years. The latter, if I recall, gave historians insights into life, as I think it included images and poetry.
Of course the difficulty of assessing these things is that the value of public buildings and ruins has changed over time. At one time they were largely ignored as historical buildings and instead were highly romantic, moss-covered mysterious messages from the past. It was only really in the 20th century that their historical value was truly appreciated and that restoration was attempted.
Sorry I got a bit diverted into a different rant there