Ads, Graffiti, and Daley

Most comunities have some official or unofficial structure in place for removing graffiti - but (to my knowledge) only Chicago has claimed the legal right to remove graffiti from private property. The assumption that graffiti artists are virtually impossible to hold financially accountable for removal has led to cities spending civic dollars for paint, soda blasters, etc. But the recent phenomenon of corporate graffiti adds a new twist to this structure.

The theory has always gone that a property owner has the right to allow advertising to be placed - in whatever form - on his or her building, and that this advertising is easily recognizable as such, while graffiti is easily recognized as something that no landlord has been compensated for. But what of IBM's Peace, Love, and Linux campaign of a few years ago? Locally, San Francisco fined IBM and its agencies $20,000 for the campaign. In Chicago, IBM offered to remove the stencils, but was informed by Mayor Daley that, instead, IBM would pay the city to remove them (graffiti removal being a union job). In the end, one man was sentenced to a year of supervision and 30 hours of community service, and IBM footed an $18,000 "bill" for the removal of the stencils.

The idea behind this task is that we claim the same right to remove graffiti from private buildings; and the same right to remove even "paid for" advertising. But why only focus on coporate graffiti (unless you believe the inherent evil of graffiti causes rich gangs, violence, etc)?

(no subject)

Check out someone else's sweet "completion" of this.

(no subject) +1

Wow, that's amazing - and I know that guy! He made one of my favorite video games

(no subject)

Great minds think alike; I was just about to hyperlink that
Sean that game is fucking amazing where can I play it!