On 8/2/12 7:36 PM, Bill Graham wrote: > K Wills wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <email@example.com> >> 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" and should have been >>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he >>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money, >>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth >>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects. >> >> That's a poor analogy. >> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the >> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid. He >> used government funds and recorded in a government office (the Oval >> Office). >> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law >> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything. >> >>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his >>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS..... >> >> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But >> that's me. > > SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the government > the money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment and the blank > tapes.
Every time I think you can't get any more ignorant, you prove me wrong.
> Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.
The gov has the right to evidence of a crime.
> Anyone with any hint of logic in his soul would know that.
That wouldn't be you.
> Do you really > think the framers of our constitution were talking about the recording > media when they wrote the forth amendment?
It's "fourth." And no, the framers didn't have "recording media" in mind when they banned unreasonable search and seizure, bu they're covered anyway. The framers certainly recognized that a criminal justice system requires reasonable search and seizure to prosecute criminals like Nixon.