More

Los Angeles Street Art Violating Unfair Competition Laws?

CHRISTINA HOAG   04/ 2/11 04:43 PM ET   AP

Los Angeles Street Art

LOS ANGELES — Not so long ago, Cristian Gheorghiu roamed the streets of Los Angeles at all hours, black marker in his pocket, hunting for walls and street signs where he could scrawl his graffiti moniker, "Smear."

These days, he's working in his garage, splashed in paint and surrounded by canvases, paint cans, markers and odds and ends he uses to fashion abstract mixed-media artworks, which have been exhibited in galleries from California to Europe, fetching up to a couple thousand dollars.

"Painting is a good way to wean yourself off graffiti, get that bug out," said Gheorghiu, a slightly built 34-year-old with shoulder-length hair. "It's kind of evolved. I've had some moderate success."

Although he says his tagging days are past, Gheorghiu's past is now tagging him.

The Los Angeles city attorney's office has filed a lawsuit against Gheorghiu and nine other graffiti writers associated with the MTA tagging crew, charging them with violating California's unfair competition laws because they're selling art works on the strength of their outlaw names and reputations.

"They've obtained an unfair advantage because they gained fame and notoriety through criminal acts," said Anne Tremblay, assistant city attorney. "This is unlawful competition."

The argument is a novel one in the legal annals of efforts to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes, and represents a new weapon in the city's long-suffering battle against graffiti vandals. It also comes at a time when the market for so-called street art is growing exponentially.

But Peter Bibring, Gheorghiu's lawyer, says the city attorney's lawsuit is a thinly-veiled end run around the First Amendment right to free expression.

"This is an extraordinary overreach," said Bibring, staff attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "The government cannot say who can be an artist."

For years, states have tried to block felons from making money mainly through book and movie deals. The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have repeatedly struck down so-called "Son of Sam" laws, named after New York's efforts to block 1970s serial killer David Berkowitz from selling his story.

Courts have upheld that criminals have a right to free expression, which includes everything from writing about their crimes to painting about them – and profiting. The fact that crime can pay, however, rankles victims.

"It's a perversion of the criminal justice system that one can take damage to an innocent victim and profit from it. Their story becomes a commodity," said David J. Cook, the San Francisco lawyer who has doggedly pursued a $33.5 million wrongful death judgment against O.J. Simpson for the family of victim Ronald Goldman. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend, Goldman, but hit with damages in civil court.

Victims have been able to thwart criminal profiteering by filing civil lawsuits to collect proceeds from any book or movie deal and by plea bargains that stipulate any profits from such deals must be turned over to the victim.

Using an unfair competition law and targeting graffiti writers' commercial works are both in uncharted legal territory. The maneuver underscores authorities' exasperation with a subculture that prizes prolific defacement of public property, including buses, street signs and freeway overpasses, and costs taxpayers millions to remove.

Just one of the MTA's tags – its initials painted 57 feet high and a quarter-mile-long on the Los Angeles River concrete embankment – cost the city $3.7 million to paint over.

Tremblay said her lawsuit is not aimed at preventing Gheorghiu from making a living as an artist or from using the name "Smear."

However, it requests that a court declare him and nine other graffiti writers in violation of the unfair competition law because they've sold art signed with their tag names, and bar them from selling photos of graffiti that includes the writers' tags or the name MTA.

"They're creating a crime scene and taking photos of it to sell," said Tremblay, who is also seeking to have the MTA be subject to legal restrictions as a criminal street gang and pay $5 million in fines and damages.

But use of crime scene photos, commonly featured in crime books, and nicknames, such as mobsters' colorful monikers, can't be limited, said David L. Hudson, scholar at the First Amendment Center. .

"I find the application of that law dubious," said Hudson, who also teaches first amendment law at Vanderbilt University Law School. "This raises serious first amendment issues."

Gheorghiu said he's never sold photos, and denies the lawsuit's assertions that he used graffiti to launch his art career. "I don't have a five-year career plan. There was no intent of profiting from it," he said. "All these things kind of happened."

He started tagging when he was about 13 and it soon became an adrenaline-driven compulsion that he couldn't stop despite several arrests.

In 2007, his run ended when he got hit with three felony counts of vandalism. After pleading no contest, he was sentenced to probation, community service and paying $28,000 in restitution, of which he's paid $5,000.

Gheorghiu said he went cold-turkey off graffiti, pouring his energy into legitimate art. His works incorporate bold brushstrokes, stark faces reminiscent of Austrian expressionist Oskar Kokoschka's portraits, cartoon-like figures and everyday items such as postal labels, movie tickets, and consumer packaging.

Although he said it was tough to stop graffiti, he knew he had to. "I was living in fear and paranoia," he said. "It's just not for me anymore."

He has exhibited and sold his work in galleries all over California, plus Philadelphia, Berlin and his native Romania – his family emigrated from Bucharest when he was five – and landed commissions such as a mural at a South Los Angeles high school. But he said his painting is not making him rich – he supplements his meager art income with movie extra work to make ends meet and pay his restitution.

Los Angeles graffiti expert Roger Gastman said Gheorghiu's story is not unusual.

Graffiti writers are part of a wave of interest in urban art that has gained mainstream acceptance in recent years, he said, noting that Los Angeles' Museum of Contemporary Art is opening a large exhibit "Art in the Streets" later this month.

"There's a huge growing market and it's nonstop," said Gastman, co-author of "The History of American Graffiti."

Gheorghiu says he now feels the victim of, well, a smear campaign by prosecutors. Two years ago, he was jailed for three days in connection with the giant MTA tag and released free of charges.

He was arrested two weeks ago on probation violation charges for posting photos of illegal graffiti on his website.

After Gheorghiu served nine days in jail, a judge ordered him to perform 45 days of community service, but also allowed him to possess art supplies in his work space, although not in the street, after he complained that authorities confiscated paint and materials from his studio-garage.

Gheorghiu said he's paying his debt and wants to be left in peace.

Graffiti "is pure ego. It's a really selfish thing to do. It is illegal when it comes down to it," he said, dipping his fingers into can of paint and smearing it on a canvas. "I like painting in my garage by myself. That's the only thing that matters now."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST LOS ANGELES

Filed by Anna Almendrala  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:53 AM on 04/06/2011
I don't quite catch the logic. Criminals are usually condemned to pay hefty civil damages. How are they going to find the money to pay them? Certainly not by landing a job in an investment bank. The best way is for them to cash on their short time of fame. This artist still owns $ 23K as restitution to the public and the same public, through the DA, is going to spend I don't how much of public money to basically block him to pay his debt.
photo
terryward
http://GrumpyVisualArtist.BlogSpot.com
11:48 AM on 04/05/2011
clearly in the wrong business.
3.7 million to remove a graffiti mural?
woooooooo.
pays a lot better to take paint OFF than to put it on.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vincent Gormley
Artist, activist, volunteer, compassion lives
12:30 PM on 04/04/2011
The late, great "Grandpa" Al Lewis used to say "a law is nothing more than something you pay for". Right wing politicians gain notoriety in similar fashion, for example: Darryl Issa. Any excuse to control thought and freedom of expression.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
antiTrope
11:40 AM on 04/04/2011
The problem with talented graffiti artists is that they show no social responsibility. They open the door for 1,000s of untalented copy cat hacks to pollute the urban environment we all have to share. If you have an itch to create, do it in a more structured way. If you have money to buy spray paint, then you have money to purchase other art supplies.
11:01 AM on 04/04/2011
$3.7 Mil to paint over graffiti? Scott Walker's clean up crew do the work for LA? Tagger art or political signs---give me the tagger. If LA wants to recoup some of their cleanup money then the court is the way and a deal for a reasonable lump sum / payment plan could be reached without outlandish cleanup charges.
photo
iuriggs6
Sure thing. Shoot, Timmy.
10:59 AM on 04/04/2011
If this guy had been a legit artist from the start and not a criminal"artist" he would not be in this position.
07:31 PM on 04/03/2011
ridiculous.
05:17 PM on 04/03/2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGEIl6oR_vU..........There is absolutely NO FREEDOM in this country anymore!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
11:15 PM on 04/03/2011
I don't think the founding fathers intended for taggers to have free rein over private and public property.
garystartswithg
el sueno de la razon produce republicans
02:53 PM on 04/03/2011
Los Angeles govt has been out of touch with its constituency for decades, nothing new here. How do you kill a thriving art scene? sit back and watch.

I am thinking you could get an artist to paint a bridge with something enhancing for 3.7 million. Someone's cousin obviously just bought a paint sprayer and needed a job.
02:45 AM on 04/03/2011
The proposition that someone can "obtain an unfair advantage because they gained fame and notoriety through criminal acts" means that public loves and adores criminals. I rather believe it's not the case, but that painting on the walls is not a crime.
07:33 PM on 04/02/2011
"Just one of the MTA's tags – its initials painted 57 feet high and a quarter-mile-long on the Los Angeles River concrete embankment – cost the city $3.7 million to paint over." -

Maybe the city of Los Angeles should figure out a cheaper way to use paint...are...you...kidding...me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
10:56 PM on 04/02/2011
$1,000 for paint,
developer fee to paint $3,699,000

And just how was he able to paint a 75,420 sq ft mural -- unnoticed?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
12:26 AM on 04/03/2011
"And just how was he able to paint a 75,420 sq ft mural -- unnoticed?"

Good point. In fact, how does all the tagging that happens on the freeway go unnoticed?

As for the cost, $3.7 million is insane. LA County jail is stocked with inmates doing nothing. Make them paint.
photo
darkmark
religion, the veil of evil.
11:08 AM on 04/03/2011
so it cost la 3.7 mil and there was the dude doing the graffiti for 3.7 thousand $s.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
04:10 PM on 04/02/2011
One more idea

Before this silly lawsuit, the graffiti artists may not have qualified as professional artists. The city' lawsuit now recognizes them as professional artists.

LA used to have a law which made it illegal to damage or deface an artist's mural. Thus, the artists may be able to counter-sue the city to keep their art on the walls or they may sue for money damages if they art has been removed. I used the law in the 1980's for a lawfully painted mural which was removed by the wall's owner and the artist got $30K.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
04:06 PM on 04/02/2011
Yes, what a wise idea -- Sue the vandals -- that certainly won't bring national and even international coverage to them.

Whose idea was this anyway -- the attorneys for the graffiti artists? If so, the artists should pay their attys a ton of money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
12:52 PM on 04/02/2011
Instead of this "unfair competition" legal theory why doesn't the city attorney sue for damages related to cleaning up the vandals mess? I can't imagine these artists will sell more of their trash than what the clean-up is worth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
04:06 PM on 04/02/2011
OMG -- a million dollars couldn't buy them this much publicity. If their art wasn't worth much two days ago, it's worth a bundle today.

I have not read the lawsuit, but under B/P 17200, the city cannot obtain a damages award against the artists so your question is right on point. A regular damages lawsuit would probably have garnered little attention.