On 8/1/12 6:38 PM, Bill Graham wrote: > Gordon Burditt wrote: >>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest >>> in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately >>> damage or destroy it without permission. >> >> How far does this go? >> >> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist >> painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism, >> and he is convicted. >> >> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti >> ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the >> neighbors are complaining. >> >> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not >> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me >> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have >> rights here to preserve his work? >> >> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is >> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the >> house. > > There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and the > canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The > information on them was his private "papers"
No, it wasn't. They were all discussions he held as President.
> and should have been > protected by the forth amendment,
It's "fourth." And the tapes were evidence of criminal activity. This evidence was subpoenaed.
> but SCOTUS said that since he > purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money, > everything belonged to them,
SCOTUS said no such thing. They said that his claims of executive privilege couldn't defeat a Congressional subpoena. Nothing to do with who owned the tapes or the taping equipment, which, by the way, were bought with GSA funds. As irrelevant as that is.
> and so they tromped on his forth amendment > rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
It's "fourth." And that amendment doesn't mean that private papers and effects can't be subpoenaed.
> Since the artist > painted on your house, you can now trash his work with impumity > according to SCOTUS.....
Wrong again. Copyright law tells you what you have to do to remove the work.