written and verbal agreements is incredibly vague. This could mean as little as "Sure you can paint a mural on my building", or any number of agreements that don't transfer ownership rights. They don't say that they have a written agreement allowing indefinite usage of the wall for murals. Allowing a mural to be painted is not a transference of ownership and is not an agreement for the owner to never paint over it.

> I think you should consider why you immediately, and incorrectly, jump to the defense of moneyed interests over artists and community organizations.

Because property rights are good and allow for a functioning society.

▲

asveikau 16 hours ago | parent [-]

I think I saw elsewhere that the owner has been the same for 35 years or something like that. So there is no relevant transfer of ownership.

Your opening statement here is pretty ridiculous I need to say. "Written agreements doesn't mean shit!" Then you just make up a scenario where the contract wouldn't hold up.

	▲	ecshafer 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They do not define what their written or verbal agreements are, it is as simple as that. That statement would mean its possible they asked 35 years ago got a shrug and some guy saying "sure" OR it could maximally be a full contract with permanent transfer of the right of painting the wall. If this organization uses a vague statement, then its fair to take the vagueness is the worst possible way for them.
	▲	SR2Z 13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		His point is that "written and vegan agreements" is not the same thing as "has a contract" and that the legal niceties need to be respected or else it would be impossible to get anything done. Asking "is it cool if I paint your wall?" more than three decades ago doesn't create a contract or protect the work. I highly doubt that street artists made a legally binding agreement with the owners that protects the art for the simple reason that this would be a ridiculous encumbrance on the property that would be unacceptable to most sane people.