Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.

▲ asoidfgnion 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is one of the sources for the linked article:

https://missionlocal.org/2026/09/four-murals-in-clarion-alle...

>“CAMP has had both written and verbal agreements/understandings with property owners and landlords regarding murals on Clarion Alley for 34, going on 35 years,” read a statement from Clarion Alley Mural Project.

This should have been mentioned in the original article. It also should be obvious, I think. Why would you assume that high-quality murals created by an established institution were done without proper legal arrangements?

▲

magicalhippo 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, my complaint was with the article. Why leave out such an important piece of information? Why not dig into the agreements and understandings? You say it is obvious, but to me it is not. I know of several works of wall-sized graffiti and similar that just had a verbal agreement, which would be very vulnerable if the property got new owners or management.

As I understand it, here in Norway the propery owner would be entitled to destroy the murials entirely (but not alter or mutilate), by say painting over them in entirety. However they should then notify the copyright holder (artist) in advance so the copyright holder has time to document the murial.

Sounds like this wasn't done, but I don't know if there are similar laws over there.

▲

chrismcb 14 hours ago | parent [-]

If they had verbal agreement it is not graffiti.

	▲	magicalhippo 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The dictionaries disagrees[1][2], but lets call it graffiti-styled street art then. Guess graffiti is perhaps a bit more a general term here[3]. [1]: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=graffiti [2]: https://www.britannica.com/art/graffiti-art [3]: https://snl.no/graffiti

▲

andrewmlevy 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>> done without proper legal arrangements

This is a completely fair assumption in San Francisco of all places.

▲ jacobolus 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. Anyone owning property there is well aware of it. If someone ordered murals painted over there, it was because they were deliberately trying to destroy celebrated public art.

▲ tekla 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I see this response doesn't actually respond to

> Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.

▲

jacobolus 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From Mission Local, https://missionlocal.org/2026/09/four-murals-in-clarion-alle...

> “CAMP has had both written and verbal agreements/understandings with property owners and landlords regarding murals on Clarion Alley for 34, going on 35 years,” read a statement from Clarion Alley Mural Project.

> At the moment, it’s unclear whether CAMP has a written agreement for 3331 17th St. The organization, however, does have a verbal agreement with all the landlords/property owners where they have murals throughout the alley.

> The property’s owners haven’t changed since 2001. The owner of 3331 17th St. is listed as the Guerrero V. Espinoza Trust in city records.

> The murals painted over include “We’re all in this together,” a memorial for activist and artist Kirsten Brydum, painted in 2016 by John Viola; “Everything Must Go,” a tribute to Adobe Books’ former home at 3166 16th St., painted in 2015 by Daniel Doherty; a tribute to local graffiti artist Chloe a.k.a. Marfa by Floyd; and a mural completed this spring by students from Graffiti Camp for Girls, a local organization training young women in creating public art.

	▲	mc32 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think we need to know the nature of the agreements (what did they agree to) as well as whether they are legally binding. Without that information we’re all left to guess.

▲

Zigurd 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It doesn't deserve a response. It's self refuting. The likeliest situation is there was no formal arrangement.

The decent thing to do was to come to an arrangement whether there was a previous arrangement or not. You can be perfectly within your rights as they might be litigated in a court and still be an asshole deserving of public disapproval.

▲ dmitrygr 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

  > This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades.

As an owner, I can change what I permit or do not permit on my property on any whim, with no notice to anyone. That is quite literally what ownership means -- control of property.

▲

jacobolus 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some people have the legal authority to destroy public art. That doesn't make it a morally or socially acceptable behavior.

	▲	artisinal 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Is it morally or socially acceptable to paint over someone else's private property?
	▲	RobRivera 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Morality is relative

▲

zbrozek 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not here; being an owner just means you're liable for the taxes and still have to get permission from someone else to do anything with the space.

	▲	SoftTalker 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To be a bit more nuanced, you can do anything with your property except that which requires permission or approval. NOT that you must get permission for anything you do with your property. The specifics can vary widely from locality to locality, obviously. Painting a wall is something that usually doesn't require a permit. Maybe some restrictions if the building is a historic landmark or something like that.

▲

SR2Z 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not if there was a contract governing the property.

There almost certainly wasn't here, but owning property does not always give you unrestricted rights to do as you please with it.

▲

harimau777 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are also a member of the community. That carries obligations.