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?













5















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:



  1. Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and

  2. Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?









share|improve this question
























  • 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















5















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:



  1. Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and

  2. Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?









share|improve this question
























  • 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













5












5








5








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:



  1. Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and

  2. Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?









share|improve this question
















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:



  1. Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and

  2. Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?






united-states criminal-law






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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

















  • 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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4














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".






share|improve this answer
































    0














    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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



















    0














    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.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



















      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
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      4














      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".






      share|improve this answer





























        4














        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".






        share|improve this answer



























          4












          4








          4







          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".






          share|improve this answer















          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".







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 12 '17 at 20:00









          feetwet

          14.8k94295




          14.8k94295










          answered Jan 12 '17 at 2:51









          user6726user6726

          60.9k455106




          60.9k455106





















              0














              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.






              share|improve this answer























              • 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
















              0














              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.






              share|improve this answer























              • 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














              0












              0








              0







              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.






              share|improve this answer













              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              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


















              • 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












              0














              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.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                0














                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.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  0












                  0








                  0







                  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.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  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.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 17 mins ago









                  amannamedmeamannamedme

                  1




                  1




                  New contributor




                  amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  amannamedme is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

                      2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

                      Metrô de Los Teques Índice Linhas | Estações | Ver também | Referências Ligações externas | Menu de navegação«INSTITUCIÓN»«Mapa de rutas»originalMetrô de Los TequesC.A. Metro Los Teques |Alcaldía de Guaicaipuro – Sitio OficialGobernacion de Mirandaeeeeeee