So basically this is to sleazy ad campaigns as disney was to times square?

Nice reaction!

This is amazing AND evil genius! My favorite sort!

Illegal for who?
If it was illegal for the billboards themselves to be there, assuming the person with the illegal billboard is also the building's owner... I bet this could bring some AWESOME publicity to your business.

This sort of aesthetic guerilla warfare is a-w-e-s-o-m-e.

www.adbusters.org is a great stepping stone for those with anti-programming tendencies.

My biggest complaint living in and around NYC is the lack of art, and the prevalence of advertisements. The world needs more ART!

www.antiadvertisingagency.com is another.

That's AWESOME!

This makes me wish I was an artist.

I'd been hoping someone would do something like this in LA, we have thousands of illegal billboards, some of them even of the LCD variety.

<3 it!

What made the ads illegal in the first place? That's the part I don't understand.

@Benguin: According to the third link,

"NYSAT was organized as a reaction to the hundreds of billboards that are not registered with the city, and therefore are illegal. While illegal, these violations are not being prosecuted by the City of New York, allowing the billboard companies to garner huge profits by cluttering our outdoor space with intrusive and ugly ads."

Wow. Soon we'll here some lawsuits from the dudes owning the signs for vandalism. It's still private property.

Although the art is cool. :)

YES!!!!!!!

That's neat. I love vigilante art.

@theczardictates: The beautiful thing about being an artist is its the one profession where you just "say" you're an artist and POOF you are one.

I LOVE IT.

@bibliophibian: Seems a worthwhile protest to me.

So if it's illegal for someone to put an ad on a billboard, shouldn't it be just as illegal for someone to put what they call "art" on a billboard?

Also, who owns the billboards? If I own a billboard and I put an ad on it without registering with the city, it's still my billboard, and it's vandalism for someone to paint over it with "art."

I love how activist groups like this break laws trying to demonstrate how others are breaking laws. Reminds me of how Critical Mass breaks traffic laws in order to raise awareness for bicycle laws.

@youbastid: LCD's eh? *looks around for a screwdriver*

@Dallifornia: From what the blog says, it's a single company that owns all of these billboards, none of which have the required licences. The city doesn't have the man power or money to get rid of them, so the artists stepped in and pasted over them

So no, the boards aren't owned by the building owners (blog mentions a company called NPA), but it does indeed make for some awesome marketing for those who do. Especially the diner that got a large mural right next to their window :)

@dave_coder: Actually that's the point. The targeted ads were illegal anyway, so don't have any more protection than graffiti on a wall would. Even if they tried to press charges, they'd be opening themselves up to a lawsuit from the city itself for breaking licencing laws

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: The billboards themselves are illegal, not what's posted on them. Read the first link, it explains why they targeted certain billboards

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: Explain to me, then, how people are supposed to be actively protest against something and achieve results? This didn't hurt anyone but the people who illegally posted those ads. In my book that's a-okay as well as.

Also, don't give me that protest on the side of the street crap. That works sometimes but not for something like this. And this is art, get off your high horse. If you don't think this is art, then do something better.

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: Illegal ads vs. illegal art -- and the city doesn't have enough resources to crack down on either. Whatever, I'd rather look at art than ads.

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: Whenever I have to solve a problem that no one else is willing to solve, I do it in the manner I know best.

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: The advertising parties set the precedent. What they did would be considered vandalism in the first place. Now, to be protesting vandalism with further vandalism is not the ideal situation for sure. It's a "fight fire with fire" situation employed as a last resort. Sometimes the best achievable outcome is a stalemate.

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: Wow, way to completely miss the point. It's illegal ADVERTISING in a city overrun with advertising, and the citizens are responding by replacing it with art. It's appropriate for them to do so without permission, since the ads were put up without *their* permission (i.e. without going through the channels that exist publicly to regulate it).

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: You may want to familiarize yourself with the term "civil disobedience."

This is awesome. I would rather look at the art than the advertisements. I never knew all NPA billboards was illegal. That is great info.

Which is a worse crime? Not paying a tax to register a billboard, or defacing someone else's property?

@cmdrsass: Right. I've always been disturbed by the "it's ok for us to ____ because we think what they're doing is worse."

@FooSchnickens: Huh?

@cmdrsass: An illegal billboard is no one's property. Or do you do you think it's a crime to steal from a crack dealer?

@youbastid:

Ugh. Those LCD billboards are gaudy. They also distract drivers and increase the chances of an auto accident.

Illegal ads are making the city look ugly. Lately, I've been seeing way too many illegal billboards plastered on the side of buildings.

@cmdrsass and @Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously:
Our RIGHT not to be advertised AT in every fricking possible nook and cranny of the world where we don't want it supersedes some illegal sales-freaks "non-Right" to non-protected and illegal harassment-sales-speech. Just like my RIGHT to dinner and privacy in my home supersedes the Non-Right of illegal Telemarketers to invade my home with MY telephone.

This action is wonderful - I want to see it spread to "legal" billboards too, and I think we need to start a nonprofit to pay for the artists legal costs.

Here's why: Why don't consumers have a right, individually or collectively to advertise AGAINST businesses? Advertising should be able to consist of that to as long as the consumer is airing a legitimate beef, and media companies should have to sell it at discounted rates since consumers have less money. Besides we all know most corporate advertising is lies and spin, and most consumer anti-corporate advertising would probably be truthful. I am SICK and TIRED of corporate marketing NAZIs controlling my life experience and image input everywhere I go. It's bad enough I have to see it in my mail box, my email, my radio, my television, my telephone - why do I have to see it on the street too?

Billboards are a fundamental visual pollution and violation of people's right to a pleasant looking landscape free of cheap sleaze ads.

This artist group should receive medals, not criticism, and I wouldn't have stopped there. I would have found the office of the illegal advertisers and "articized" every square inch of their building, windows, cars, pavement, etc.

These illegal advertising thugs need to be made to realized in their faces they are not wanted, and to go get real jobs and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Yeah... replace ads with Big-Brotheresque computer icons. Nice...?

@cmdrsass: whos property? the illegal billboard? it shouldnt even be there, it exists outside the law. Or perhaps you mean the building, which is already defaced, but is now converted to free art/social statement vs a bail bonds ad?

This is too cool.

A couple of these pretty clever too.

@nakedscience: not exactly. When following the flickr link it seems a ton of the replacement"art" is based on something called 'dick chicken'. A chicken with a dick for a head. yea... that is SO MUCH friggin better then an advertisement (rolls eyes)

So, what I'm reading from this comment thread is as follows:

THIS is considered "art" http://www.flickr.com/photos/37774782@N05/3495866204/

And, since what NPA is doing is illegal, it's perfectly OK to place something else, just as illegal, in it's place in protest. Rather than simply organize people to remove the illegal signs, it is perfectly acceptable to do just as much vandalism, as long as you call your political viewpoints "art".