Question
Please read the provided article and complete the Guided Reading below.
Pro ---- Graffiti Artists Awarded 6.7 million for Destroyed Murals by Alan Feuer
Graffiti Artist Awarded 6.7 Million for Destroyed Murals
Students may use this as a secondary resource for their Portfolio.
(20 points)
Put responses in the correct input to answer the question. Select a response, navigate to the desired input and insert the response. Responses can be selected and inserted using the space bar, enter key, left mouse button or touchpad. Responses can also be moved by dragging with a mouse.
From 2002 to 2013, Jerry Wolkoff allowed artists to create Response areamurals on his building. Then in 2013, Wolkoff destroyed the murals without Response area to develop the property.
A federal judge ruled, that graffiti Response area was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law.
The case was decided based on the Response area
This case pitted the Response areaworld against the real estate business.
It was the first time Response area were protected under the V.A.R.A.
“There have been other instances where graffiti artists have been recognized
as Response area,” Mr. Nicyper said... "But the 5Pointz case, he said, was the Response area that graffiti and
graffiti artists were protected under V.A.R.A."
The verdict sends a message that art protected by federal law must be Response areaand not destroyed.
Judge Block’s ruling — and the size of the judgment he awarded — was a decisive Response area.
Pro ---- Graffiti Artists Awarded 6.7 million for Destroyed Murals by Alan Feuer
Graffiti Artist Awarded 6.7 Million for Destroyed Murals
Students may use this as a secondary resource for their Portfolio.
(20 points)
Put responses in the correct input to answer the question. Select a response, navigate to the desired input and insert the response. Responses can be selected and inserted using the space bar, enter key, left mouse button or touchpad. Responses can also be moved by dragging with a mouse.
From 2002 to 2013, Jerry Wolkoff allowed artists to create Response areamurals on his building. Then in 2013, Wolkoff destroyed the murals without Response area to develop the property.
A federal judge ruled, that graffiti Response area was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law.
The case was decided based on the Response area
This case pitted the Response areaworld against the real estate business.
It was the first time Response area were protected under the V.A.R.A.
“There have been other instances where graffiti artists have been recognized
as Response area,” Mr. Nicyper said... "But the 5Pointz case, he said, was the Response area that graffiti and
graffiti artists were protected under V.A.R.A."
The verdict sends a message that art protected by federal law must be Response areaand not destroyed.
Judge Block’s ruling — and the size of the judgment he awarded — was a decisive Response area.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
Here's the completed Guided Reading based on the structure you've provided:
From 2002 to 2013, Jerry Wolkoff allowed artists to create **murals** on his building. Then in 2013, Wolkoff destroyed the murals without **notifying the artists** to develop the property.
A federal judge ruled that graffiti **art** was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law.
The case was decided based on the **Visual Artists Rights Act (V.A.R.A)**.
This case pitted the **graffiti** world against the real estate business.
It was the first time **graffiti artists** were protected under the V.A.R.A.
“There have been other instances where graffiti artists have been recognized as **artists**, ” Mr. Nicyper said... "But the 5Pointz case, he said, was the **first landmark case** that graffiti and graffiti artists were protected under V.A.R.A."
The verdict sends a message that art protected by federal law must be **respected** and not destroyed.
Judge Block’s ruling — and the size of the judgment he awarded — was a decisive **victory**.
Let me know if you need any more assistance!
From 2002 to 2013, Jerry Wolkoff allowed artists to create **murals** on his building. Then in 2013, Wolkoff destroyed the murals without **notifying the artists** to develop the property.
A federal judge ruled that graffiti **art** was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law.
The case was decided based on the **Visual Artists Rights Act (V.A.R.A)**.
This case pitted the **graffiti** world against the real estate business.
It was the first time **graffiti artists** were protected under the V.A.R.A.
“There have been other instances where graffiti artists have been recognized as **artists**, ” Mr. Nicyper said... "But the 5Pointz case, he said, was the **first landmark case** that graffiti and graffiti artists were protected under V.A.R.A."
The verdict sends a message that art protected by federal law must be **respected** and not destroyed.
Judge Block’s ruling — and the size of the judgment he awarded — was a decisive **victory**.
Let me know if you need any more assistance!