What is the legality of “reverse grafitti”?What is the legal take on the trolley problem?Writing exam questions on docs.google.com, Legality?Legality of “secret sexual relations”Is it legal to reverse-engineer structures on PlanetMinecraft?Legality of space colonizationThe N. word and reverse discriminationWhat is the legality of implementing an unrevealed killswitch in software?What is the legality of a business announcing the use of upcoming profits for political advocacy?Legality surrounding impersonating a Federal EmployeeCan I pay someone outside the US to reverse engineer software against the license?
Does Doodling or Improvising on the Piano Have Any Benefits?
How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?
Anime with legendary swords made from talismans and a man who could change them with a shattered body
"Oh no!" in Latin
Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?
Overlapping circles covering polygon
Telemetry for feature health
When and why was runway 07/25 at Kai Tak removed?
Should I assume I have passed probation?
Would this string work as string?
Do I have to take mana from my deck or hand when tapping a dual land?
What is the meaning of "You've never met a graph you didn't like?"
How many people need to be born every 8 years to sustain population?
Why would five hundred and five be same as one?
Would a primitive species be able to learn English from reading books alone?
Check if object is null and return null
Proving an identity involving cross products and coplanar vectors
How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?
Isometric embedding of a genus g surface
Air travel with refrigerated insulin
Deciphering cause of death?
Personal or impersonal in a technical resume
Why does the Persian emissary display a string of crowned skulls?
What's the name of the logical fallacy where a debater extends a statement far beyond the original statement to make it true?
What is the legality of “reverse grafitti”?
What is the legal take on the trolley problem?Writing exam questions on docs.google.com, Legality?Legality of “secret sexual relations”Is it legal to reverse-engineer structures on PlanetMinecraft?Legality of space colonizationThe N. word and reverse discriminationWhat is the legality of implementing an unrevealed killswitch in software?What is the legality of a business announcing the use of upcoming profits for political advocacy?Legality surrounding impersonating a Federal EmployeeCan I pay someone outside the US to reverse engineer software against the license?
I recently discovered several videos on YouTube talking about a new form of public art called Reverse Grafitti, the idea being that instead of adding paint to a wall, you form an image by selectively cleaning it. This creates a temporary form that will fade naturally within a short (few months) timeframe.
Here is a video demonstrating the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut96pkYUOiM
Now I know that in most places, grafitti is illegal. However, here are my questions:
- Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and
- Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?
united-states criminal-law
add a comment |
I recently discovered several videos on YouTube talking about a new form of public art called Reverse Grafitti, the idea being that instead of adding paint to a wall, you form an image by selectively cleaning it. This creates a temporary form that will fade naturally within a short (few months) timeframe.
Here is a video demonstrating the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut96pkYUOiM
Now I know that in most places, grafitti is illegal. However, here are my questions:
- Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and
- Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?
united-states criminal-law
By "cleaning", you do mean that in the everyday sense of the word, right? As opposed to the removal of paint, which would be much more accurately described by the term reverse graffiti, and would be destruction of property.
– Nij
Jan 11 '17 at 9:56
2
@Nij Yes, he means cleaning - from the video it looks like they stencil an area and then waterblast that area to reveal a clean surface. No destruction of property is involved. Its a novel concept.
– davidgo
Jan 11 '17 at 21:46
1
In some cases, that's destruction of the historical patina and possible damage to masonry and concrete. But mostly, you're still creating an image or lettering on a surface that is not authorized by the owner (public or private); the image or lettering is the defacement. The graffiti is the message, and has little to do with the medium it's on or if paint is added or patina removed.
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 11 '17 at 22:42
add a comment |
I recently discovered several videos on YouTube talking about a new form of public art called Reverse Grafitti, the idea being that instead of adding paint to a wall, you form an image by selectively cleaning it. This creates a temporary form that will fade naturally within a short (few months) timeframe.
Here is a video demonstrating the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut96pkYUOiM
Now I know that in most places, grafitti is illegal. However, here are my questions:
- Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and
- Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?
united-states criminal-law
I recently discovered several videos on YouTube talking about a new form of public art called Reverse Grafitti, the idea being that instead of adding paint to a wall, you form an image by selectively cleaning it. This creates a temporary form that will fade naturally within a short (few months) timeframe.
Here is a video demonstrating the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut96pkYUOiM
Now I know that in most places, grafitti is illegal. However, here are my questions:
- Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and
- Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?
united-states criminal-law
united-states criminal-law
edited Jan 12 '17 at 15:41
BlueDogRanch
10.3k21838
10.3k21838
asked Jan 11 '17 at 7:25
TyzoidTyzoid
1205
1205
By "cleaning", you do mean that in the everyday sense of the word, right? As opposed to the removal of paint, which would be much more accurately described by the term reverse graffiti, and would be destruction of property.
– Nij
Jan 11 '17 at 9:56
2
@Nij Yes, he means cleaning - from the video it looks like they stencil an area and then waterblast that area to reveal a clean surface. No destruction of property is involved. Its a novel concept.
– davidgo
Jan 11 '17 at 21:46
1
In some cases, that's destruction of the historical patina and possible damage to masonry and concrete. But mostly, you're still creating an image or lettering on a surface that is not authorized by the owner (public or private); the image or lettering is the defacement. The graffiti is the message, and has little to do with the medium it's on or if paint is added or patina removed.
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 11 '17 at 22:42
add a comment |
By "cleaning", you do mean that in the everyday sense of the word, right? As opposed to the removal of paint, which would be much more accurately described by the term reverse graffiti, and would be destruction of property.
– Nij
Jan 11 '17 at 9:56
2
@Nij Yes, he means cleaning - from the video it looks like they stencil an area and then waterblast that area to reveal a clean surface. No destruction of property is involved. Its a novel concept.
– davidgo
Jan 11 '17 at 21:46
1
In some cases, that's destruction of the historical patina and possible damage to masonry and concrete. But mostly, you're still creating an image or lettering on a surface that is not authorized by the owner (public or private); the image or lettering is the defacement. The graffiti is the message, and has little to do with the medium it's on or if paint is added or patina removed.
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 11 '17 at 22:42
By "cleaning", you do mean that in the everyday sense of the word, right? As opposed to the removal of paint, which would be much more accurately described by the term reverse graffiti, and would be destruction of property.
– Nij
Jan 11 '17 at 9:56
By "cleaning", you do mean that in the everyday sense of the word, right? As opposed to the removal of paint, which would be much more accurately described by the term reverse graffiti, and would be destruction of property.
– Nij
Jan 11 '17 at 9:56
2
2
@Nij Yes, he means cleaning - from the video it looks like they stencil an area and then waterblast that area to reveal a clean surface. No destruction of property is involved. Its a novel concept.
– davidgo
Jan 11 '17 at 21:46
@Nij Yes, he means cleaning - from the video it looks like they stencil an area and then waterblast that area to reveal a clean surface. No destruction of property is involved. Its a novel concept.
– davidgo
Jan 11 '17 at 21:46
1
1
In some cases, that's destruction of the historical patina and possible damage to masonry and concrete. But mostly, you're still creating an image or lettering on a surface that is not authorized by the owner (public or private); the image or lettering is the defacement. The graffiti is the message, and has little to do with the medium it's on or if paint is added or patina removed.
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 11 '17 at 22:42
In some cases, that's destruction of the historical patina and possible damage to masonry and concrete. But mostly, you're still creating an image or lettering on a surface that is not authorized by the owner (public or private); the image or lettering is the defacement. The graffiti is the message, and has little to do with the medium it's on or if paint is added or patina removed.
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 11 '17 at 22:42
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
I don't know of any legal reason to care whether people consider reverse graffiti to be graffiti, since graffiti is not itself a legal concept. The act when done without permission is, however, trespassing, which is against the law. Painting a building is legal, if done with permission; painting a building in a pattern is legal, if done with permission. Strangely enough, cleaning a building without permission, whether entirely of selectively in a pattern, is illegal.
There are in fact specific laws about defacing property, so the illegality of the act does not rely solely on trespass laws. The NYC law is here, the California law is here, and there are many similar laws. In Washington, illegality arises from a more general prohibition against causing physical damage, which is defined here, and boils down to "costs money to fix". These laws are not limited to "applying opaque material to a surface".
add a comment |
From what the video shows, you'd still be vandalizing property. However, there may be different laws about it from city to city, so you might still be able to do reverse graffiti without being charged. If your state does NOT have any laws governing it, you might be better off just assuming that you shouldn't do it.
I don't believe any of these ideas were actually brought before a court, but it's sort of a given that the minute someone starts doing it, there WILL be a case.
This will depend on the state or city, but you may be able to ask your city council (if applicable) about it, but it most likely would only be legal on city property if a law were to get passed.
You really should base your answer in legal aspects for this site. There will be different laws according to jurisdiction. But exactly how is reverse graffiti vandalism? Are you sure there are no legal cases? Why could it possibly "only be legal on city property"?
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 12 '17 at 2:34
add a comment |
ok, so, subquestion:
after some verbal anti-semitism in my town, i got a little rash and drew a(ok, two) star of david on my car in the dirt. til i found something suitable. anyway, today after i got home, i realized someone had rubbed it out and replaced it with a cross. i realize this is almost silly to pursue, but there may be surveillance footage, and, well, id love to help a jew hater get to know the law.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f16339%2fwhat-is-the-legality-of-reverse-grafitti%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I don't know of any legal reason to care whether people consider reverse graffiti to be graffiti, since graffiti is not itself a legal concept. The act when done without permission is, however, trespassing, which is against the law. Painting a building is legal, if done with permission; painting a building in a pattern is legal, if done with permission. Strangely enough, cleaning a building without permission, whether entirely of selectively in a pattern, is illegal.
There are in fact specific laws about defacing property, so the illegality of the act does not rely solely on trespass laws. The NYC law is here, the California law is here, and there are many similar laws. In Washington, illegality arises from a more general prohibition against causing physical damage, which is defined here, and boils down to "costs money to fix". These laws are not limited to "applying opaque material to a surface".
add a comment |
I don't know of any legal reason to care whether people consider reverse graffiti to be graffiti, since graffiti is not itself a legal concept. The act when done without permission is, however, trespassing, which is against the law. Painting a building is legal, if done with permission; painting a building in a pattern is legal, if done with permission. Strangely enough, cleaning a building without permission, whether entirely of selectively in a pattern, is illegal.
There are in fact specific laws about defacing property, so the illegality of the act does not rely solely on trespass laws. The NYC law is here, the California law is here, and there are many similar laws. In Washington, illegality arises from a more general prohibition against causing physical damage, which is defined here, and boils down to "costs money to fix". These laws are not limited to "applying opaque material to a surface".
add a comment |
I don't know of any legal reason to care whether people consider reverse graffiti to be graffiti, since graffiti is not itself a legal concept. The act when done without permission is, however, trespassing, which is against the law. Painting a building is legal, if done with permission; painting a building in a pattern is legal, if done with permission. Strangely enough, cleaning a building without permission, whether entirely of selectively in a pattern, is illegal.
There are in fact specific laws about defacing property, so the illegality of the act does not rely solely on trespass laws. The NYC law is here, the California law is here, and there are many similar laws. In Washington, illegality arises from a more general prohibition against causing physical damage, which is defined here, and boils down to "costs money to fix". These laws are not limited to "applying opaque material to a surface".
I don't know of any legal reason to care whether people consider reverse graffiti to be graffiti, since graffiti is not itself a legal concept. The act when done without permission is, however, trespassing, which is against the law. Painting a building is legal, if done with permission; painting a building in a pattern is legal, if done with permission. Strangely enough, cleaning a building without permission, whether entirely of selectively in a pattern, is illegal.
There are in fact specific laws about defacing property, so the illegality of the act does not rely solely on trespass laws. The NYC law is here, the California law is here, and there are many similar laws. In Washington, illegality arises from a more general prohibition against causing physical damage, which is defined here, and boils down to "costs money to fix". These laws are not limited to "applying opaque material to a surface".
edited Jan 12 '17 at 20:00
feetwet♦
14.8k94295
14.8k94295
answered Jan 12 '17 at 2:51
user6726user6726
60.9k455106
60.9k455106
add a comment |
add a comment |
From what the video shows, you'd still be vandalizing property. However, there may be different laws about it from city to city, so you might still be able to do reverse graffiti without being charged. If your state does NOT have any laws governing it, you might be better off just assuming that you shouldn't do it.
I don't believe any of these ideas were actually brought before a court, but it's sort of a given that the minute someone starts doing it, there WILL be a case.
This will depend on the state or city, but you may be able to ask your city council (if applicable) about it, but it most likely would only be legal on city property if a law were to get passed.
You really should base your answer in legal aspects for this site. There will be different laws according to jurisdiction. But exactly how is reverse graffiti vandalism? Are you sure there are no legal cases? Why could it possibly "only be legal on city property"?
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 12 '17 at 2:34
add a comment |
From what the video shows, you'd still be vandalizing property. However, there may be different laws about it from city to city, so you might still be able to do reverse graffiti without being charged. If your state does NOT have any laws governing it, you might be better off just assuming that you shouldn't do it.
I don't believe any of these ideas were actually brought before a court, but it's sort of a given that the minute someone starts doing it, there WILL be a case.
This will depend on the state or city, but you may be able to ask your city council (if applicable) about it, but it most likely would only be legal on city property if a law were to get passed.
You really should base your answer in legal aspects for this site. There will be different laws according to jurisdiction. But exactly how is reverse graffiti vandalism? Are you sure there are no legal cases? Why could it possibly "only be legal on city property"?
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 12 '17 at 2:34
add a comment |
From what the video shows, you'd still be vandalizing property. However, there may be different laws about it from city to city, so you might still be able to do reverse graffiti without being charged. If your state does NOT have any laws governing it, you might be better off just assuming that you shouldn't do it.
I don't believe any of these ideas were actually brought before a court, but it's sort of a given that the minute someone starts doing it, there WILL be a case.
This will depend on the state or city, but you may be able to ask your city council (if applicable) about it, but it most likely would only be legal on city property if a law were to get passed.
From what the video shows, you'd still be vandalizing property. However, there may be different laws about it from city to city, so you might still be able to do reverse graffiti without being charged. If your state does NOT have any laws governing it, you might be better off just assuming that you shouldn't do it.
I don't believe any of these ideas were actually brought before a court, but it's sort of a given that the minute someone starts doing it, there WILL be a case.
This will depend on the state or city, but you may be able to ask your city council (if applicable) about it, but it most likely would only be legal on city property if a law were to get passed.
answered Jan 12 '17 at 2:13
Powerman25Powerman25
212
212
You really should base your answer in legal aspects for this site. There will be different laws according to jurisdiction. But exactly how is reverse graffiti vandalism? Are you sure there are no legal cases? Why could it possibly "only be legal on city property"?
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 12 '17 at 2:34
add a comment |
You really should base your answer in legal aspects for this site. There will be different laws according to jurisdiction. But exactly how is reverse graffiti vandalism? Are you sure there are no legal cases? Why could it possibly "only be legal on city property"?
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 12 '17 at 2:34
You really should base your answer in legal aspects for this site. There will be different laws according to jurisdiction. But exactly how is reverse graffiti vandalism? Are you sure there are no legal cases? Why could it possibly "only be legal on city property"?
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 12 '17 at 2:34
You really should base your answer in legal aspects for this site. There will be different laws according to jurisdiction. But exactly how is reverse graffiti vandalism? Are you sure there are no legal cases? Why could it possibly "only be legal on city property"?
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 12 '17 at 2:34
add a comment |
ok, so, subquestion:
after some verbal anti-semitism in my town, i got a little rash and drew a(ok, two) star of david on my car in the dirt. til i found something suitable. anyway, today after i got home, i realized someone had rubbed it out and replaced it with a cross. i realize this is almost silly to pursue, but there may be surveillance footage, and, well, id love to help a jew hater get to know the law.
New contributor
add a comment |
ok, so, subquestion:
after some verbal anti-semitism in my town, i got a little rash and drew a(ok, two) star of david on my car in the dirt. til i found something suitable. anyway, today after i got home, i realized someone had rubbed it out and replaced it with a cross. i realize this is almost silly to pursue, but there may be surveillance footage, and, well, id love to help a jew hater get to know the law.
New contributor
add a comment |
ok, so, subquestion:
after some verbal anti-semitism in my town, i got a little rash and drew a(ok, two) star of david on my car in the dirt. til i found something suitable. anyway, today after i got home, i realized someone had rubbed it out and replaced it with a cross. i realize this is almost silly to pursue, but there may be surveillance footage, and, well, id love to help a jew hater get to know the law.
New contributor
ok, so, subquestion:
after some verbal anti-semitism in my town, i got a little rash and drew a(ok, two) star of david on my car in the dirt. til i found something suitable. anyway, today after i got home, i realized someone had rubbed it out and replaced it with a cross. i realize this is almost silly to pursue, but there may be surveillance footage, and, well, id love to help a jew hater get to know the law.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 17 mins ago
amannamedmeamannamedme
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f16339%2fwhat-is-the-legality-of-reverse-grafitti%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
By "cleaning", you do mean that in the everyday sense of the word, right? As opposed to the removal of paint, which would be much more accurately described by the term reverse graffiti, and would be destruction of property.
– Nij
Jan 11 '17 at 9:56
2
@Nij Yes, he means cleaning - from the video it looks like they stencil an area and then waterblast that area to reveal a clean surface. No destruction of property is involved. Its a novel concept.
– davidgo
Jan 11 '17 at 21:46
1
In some cases, that's destruction of the historical patina and possible damage to masonry and concrete. But mostly, you're still creating an image or lettering on a surface that is not authorized by the owner (public or private); the image or lettering is the defacement. The graffiti is the message, and has little to do with the medium it's on or if paint is added or patina removed.
– BlueDogRanch
Jan 11 '17 at 22:42