How Stupid Are They?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

We're watching, now, among our channels 4, 7 & 12, to see if we can catch the news item again, to answer Roger's question about location , and to provide you with more info, Rufus. At 5:00, we will include channel 2 to see if that is where we first caught a portion of that news. Perhaps, I'll get lucky and be able to provide more.

4:27: found it! Channel 7:
Place: Long Island,NY
"5POINTZ" complex by real estate developer, who was sued for "illegally destroying street art," by demolishing his own building.

This is something that seems chronic in so-called news of every source - report just enough to catch the viewer's attention, blurt out something with lots of angst and outrage, and then move on to the next story before anyone has time to process what was stated/presented. Almost uniformly, I can turn to my better half and ask a question of what was that really about and what about and who and so on. Sound bites w/o substance.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Then, may we look forward to your special insight into the true substance of it all for us? In the meantime, I'll try to learn more from the inadequate news channel and relay it here for consideration.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Then, may we look forward to your special insight into the true substance of it all for us? In the meantime, I'll try to learn more from the inadequate news channel and relay it here for consideration.

Probably all available in the court records - I have a funny feeling that someone asked permission and got something on paper with a signature......probably takes an hour to explain while the news channel had 30 sec., if even that.

[HONDO74]

This is something that seems chronic in so-called news of every source - report just enough to catch the viewer's attention, blurt out something with lots of angst and outrage, and then move on to the next story before anyone has time to process what was stated/presented. Almost uniformly, I can turn to my better half and ask a question of what was that really about and what about and who and so on. Sound bites w/o substance.

On Television the news force feeds you what they want you to hear. Just one one the reason I don't watch any TV. I refuse to allow myself to be force fed. That's why I use the internet where I get spoon fed. That way if I don't like the taste on the spoon I can spit it out.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

That's why I use the internet where I get spoon fed.

That ain't no spoon - that's an enema bag running backwards

[robert.]

Artist were allowed to paint this building. If you look into it you will find that the property owner broke his agreement with these artists. It was against the law to photograph artwork on that building. You would get a fine for stealing intellectual property. This story is from Long island city. I have passed by it a few times. Some of the work was really nice.

[rogruth]

I probably missed that the owner had given permission for the painting. If so that can be a reason for the outcome of this case.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Very interesting input, Robert. Thank
You.
If, as Roger says, the building owner gave permission for the application of the artwork, did that mean he was responsible for preserving it forever ?

I wonder. If somebody comes and marks a property with graffiti , which the poster feels is art, does that mean the owner of the property cannot sell it for, oh say, urban renewal , unless he gets permission from the perp ?

Concluding that what Robert has added is true, then Rufus's statement about the shallowness and non-substantiveness of the news via TV would be on-target, right?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Very interesting input, Robert. Thank
You.
If, as Roger says, the building owner gave permission for the application of the artwork, did that mean he was responsible for preserving it forever ?

Had a sneaking feeling that there was something more to this story - the other side of the coin. Preserving it forever? Probably not. But destroying it w/o consulting the agreement he made......very much so. We don;t know the details and that's what was missing from the news story - the other 1/2 and the details. Left it out to incite a response and they got it - welcome to TV.

I wonder. If somebody comes and marks a property with graffiti , which the poster feels is art, does that mean the owner of the property cannot sell it for, oh say, urban renewal , unless he gets permission from the perp ?

Not the same thing at all. If the poster does not have some agreement regarding deposition of his work with the owner, it's vandalism through trespassing

Concluding that what Robert has added is true, then Rufus's statement about the shallowness and non-substantiveness of the news via TV would be on-target, right?

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe,

[robert.]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/mart ... worthy.htm artist rights act of 190

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Life is complicated.

[rogruth]

Robert,
I didn't read all of the attachment but wouldn't many of those questions depend on a contract if there was one?
In music I made a band arrangement of two non copyrighted public domain pieces and gave them to several other teachers.
I did not have a contract of any kind with them. One of them copyrighted it in his name and sold it to a publisher. I was SOL.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Robert,
I didn't read all of the attachment but wouldn't many of those questions depend on a contract if there was one?
In music I made a band arrangement of two non copyrighted public domain pieces and gave them to several other teachers.
I did not have a contract of any kind with them. One of them copyrighted it in his name and sold it to a publisher. I was SOL.

If you had the documentation backing up your side of the story, you could have prevailed.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

....In music I made a band arrangement of two non copyrighted public domain pieces and gave them to several other teachers.
I did not have a contract of any kind with them. One of them copyrighted it in his name and sold it to a publisher. I was SOL.

There must be some way of punishing that thief.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

....In music I made a band arrangement of two non copyrighted public domain pieces and gave them to several other teachers.
I did not have a contract of any kind with them. One of them copyrighted it in his name and sold it to a publisher. I was SOL.

There must be some way of punishing that thief.

There is if Roger has the documentation, a lawyer, and the will to pursue it.