When the artist gets the rights of the owner…

I buy land on a mountain in an out-of-the way rural area. I am not farming said land, nor using it for business purposes. Without my knowledge or consent, some artist shows up and proceeds to build an amazingly beautiful 50′ tall monument carved into the mountain of an angel cradling a baby that can be seen from half a mile away, and becomes very popular tourist attraction.

Unfortunately, I purchased this land because it is away from the population, and with expectations of maintaining a modicum of privacy. I give the artist the chance to start a project to move the monument someplace else and they refuse. Eventually, I come to the conclusion that the monument must go, as people are driving up to my house at every day at all hours and I am not getting any privacy.

After the monument is demolished, the artist sues me for 6.7 million in damages to HIS work.

Does this seem right to you?

I read an article recently and it really provokes some thought on this. Recognizing the value of the artwork should not impact an owner’s rights, even if there is a loss of value to someone else, right? Whats the use of owning the property if some guy can walts up and sue you for using it as you want?

Here is the original NY Times Article