united-states criminal-law
What is the legality of &quot;reverse grafitti&quot;?
<p>I recently discovered several videos on YouTube talking about a new form of public art called Reverse Grafitti, the idea being that instead of adding paint to a wall, you form an image by selectively cleaning it. This creates a temporary form that will fade naturally within a short (few months) timeframe.</p>

<p>Here is a video demonstrating the idea: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut96pkYUOiM" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut96pkYUOiM</a></p>

<p>Now I know that in most places, grafitti is illegal. However, here are my questions:</p>

<ol>
<li>Is "Reverse Grafitti" considered Grafitti? and</li>
<li>Have any similar ideas been brought before a court? What was the result?</li>
</ol>

<p>I don't know of any legal reason to care whether people consider reverse graffiti to be graffiti, since graffiti is not itself a legal concept. The act when done without permission is, however, trespassing, which is against the law. Painting a building is legal, if done with permission; painting a building in a pattern is legal, if done with permission. Strangely enough, cleaning a building without permission, whether entirely of selectively in a pattern, is illegal.</p>

<p>There are in fact specific laws about defacing property, so the illegality of the act does not rely solely on trespass laws. The NYC law is <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nograffiti/html/legislation.html" rel="noreferrer">here</a>, the California law is <a href="http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-594.html" rel="noreferrer">here</a>, and there are many similar laws. In Washington, illegality arises from a more general prohibition against causing physical damage, which is defined <a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.100" rel="noreferrer">here</a>, and boils down to "costs money to fix". These laws are not limited to "applying opaque material to a surface".</p>
