>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest
>>>> in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately
>>>> damage or destroy it without permission.

>>> How far does this go?

>>> Hypothetical example:  I wake up one morning and discover an artist
>>> painting a mural on my house.  I have him arrested for vandalism,
>>> and he is convicted.

>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
>>> ordinance.  I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
>>> neighbors are complaining.

>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>> visible.  He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>> or anyone else from repainting my house.  Does the "artist" have
>>> rights here to preserve his work?

>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away".  The work is
>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>> house.

>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.

>     That's a poor analogy.
>     Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid. He
> used government funds and recorded in a government office (the Oval
> Office).
>     Further, the tapes were subpoenaed.  It's not like law
> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.

>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....

>     I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
> that's me.