I think it’s a bit silly they had many years to “document” their work. They should not even been a claim at all.
They also did not own the canvas in which they painted on. I hope the owner brings it up to higher courts to overturn. They gained fame for being allowed to do it in the first place. Not to mention some of the “art” had the guys website advertising himself.
Courts these days have lost their minds. Everyone can use for everything and even when something is yours its not.
Yes I see you point
I think the owner could have handled it better but it was his property which they used for their art at no cost and with no expectations