Yes, actually. The US has the Visual Artists Rights Act which means an artist can sue if you destroy their artwork. France has even stronger laws where you can’t destroy an artwork even with the permission of the artist. I assume the UK has similar laws.

The US also has strong don't paint other people's houses laws. If what you say is true, I could graffiti your front door and sue you if you tried to fix it. I don't think that's at all how the law works for us.

Ok, but that doesn't seem to apply to "normal" graffiti does it? People remove them all the time, even when they are quite good or interesting.

we're not actually a very rules based society

Or rather these ‘rules’ would only generally apply anywhere if the mural/graffiti was painted with the consent of the owner

I understood that they want to profit. But people are stealing parts or painting over, so they either have to put security (50k per year) or sell it paying 200k for the removal. They really are asking potential buyers to pay the bill.

For what I read about VARA, it applies only if you paid the artist to paint the graffiti, and later you decide to destroy it, as the artist keeps some rights even if you own the art.

For what it's worth, I don't think this would be protected in the US.

In the US, graffiti artists' rights have only been upheld under VARA if their work was permitted by the property owner. The artists suing the developers who painted over 5 Pointz were successful because their work was created with the consent of the property owners.

However, more recently a property management company in California was not held responsible for painting over murals on their building that were painted without the owner's consent:

"CCI concedes that the statutory provisions of the VARA “do[] not expressly state that the consent of the building owner is necessary.” Id. Instead, CCI argues that “common sense” implies a requirement that a plaintiff must plead consent of a building owner to establish standing and access the protections of the VARA. Id. The Court agrees with CCI, at least with regards to works of art that cannot be removed from a building without causing their destruction."

https://casetext.com/case/canilao-v-city-commercial-invs

EDIT: -Chicago +California

Spray painting some's house without their consent is not 'artwork', it's criminal damage.

It can be both.

In law it's only criminal damage...

The Sun article mentions the council having the ability to make some sort of preservation order? Ostensibly this is to protect historic properties, but it seems like an overreach to apply that to a mural painted without the property owner's consent.

I can't otherwise explain how the property owners are being held responsible for damage done to the mural.

From this linked article: https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plast...

It says: >But after the Coutts’ were told by Suffolk council it would cost tens of thousands of pounds to maintain every year - they made the decision to have it removed.

Mr Coutts told The Times: “At first it was obviously incredible but as things have gone on it has become extremely stressful. I’m not sure Banksy realises the unintended consequences on homeowners. If we could turn back the clock, we would.

“We had the council get in touch to tell us that they could put a preservation order on the piece and we would be responsible for maintaining it at a cost of £40,000 a year.

The real villain here seems to be UK law and local busybodies. I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.

> I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.

His painting shredder piece suggests that he's specifically making the point that his art is temporary and that ties in with his general graffiti style. If he wanted it to be easy for people to buy and sell his art, he'd do it on something a bit more portable than the side of a house. A lot of his art around Bristol (where I live and Banksy's home town) is very much designed for the public to enjoy rather than to be traded.

Could, but haven't yet. Seems like they need to spray it with paint remover ASAP, preferably at night.

Why do they need to do it at night? It's their house, they can paint it.

That linked article also says "Another time vandals were caught with a dozen pots of white paint and were apparently going to paint over it." so it seems like a free solution to the problem is already presenting itself, but they actively took steps to prevent that from happening.

It also says "East Suffolk Council told Eastern Daily Press: "While we are naturally disappointed by the reported removal of the Banksy seagull from the side of a building in Lowestoft, it is ultimately the right of the owner to make decisions about their own property."

As I read it, I don't think anyone from the city council forced them to do anything, "could put a preservation order on the piece" doesn't mean they did.

It's all a bit unclear though what the exact situation is though and why they chose to spend £200,000 instead of £200 on some paint.

Why would they feel compelled to make that threat? lol

It's not clear to me it even was a threat; the context of that comment is entirely unclear. It's possible the couple just asked what could be done about the situation and the council responses with "well, we could put preservation order on it, but you'll be on the hook for protection then".

Given the later "it's their property and right to do with as they want" comment, I think something along those lines is more likely, but hard to be sure.

The reporting on all of this has not been of stellar quality.