“Rainbow Vomit” mural lawsuit

[Lowell]

The artist who created the “Rainbow Vomit” mural, as neighborhood jokesters have dubbed the nine-story “The Illuminated Mural” by Katherine Craig on the side of the Detroit Storage Co. building in Milwaukee Junction, has filed suit against the building's owners.



According to this article in Crain’s Craig's lawsuit asserts...

"…the mural is in danger because Princeton Enterprises, whose founder and CEO is Matt Lester, put the building up for auction last year [[it did not sell) and has considered redeveloping the Albert Kahn-designed building into multifamily housing.

“Princeton … has threatened to destroy or mutilate the mural by, for example, punching windows across the painted façade,” the lawsuit says.

“Princeton has asked Craig to accept little more than a token sum in exchange for her legal rights to an artwork that took more than a year to conceptualize and create, and that continues to be the most important part of her growing oeuvre.”

The lawsuit says Craig received $33,000 in funding from the College for Creative Studies Community + Public Arts: Detroit program for the project.

The Visual Artists Rights Act allows visual artists to protect their work from “any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation.”

Threatened? Since nothing has been done to the building I am having difficulty understanding what the suit is about. What are the damages?

But the lawsuit is likely premature, said Andrey Tomkiw of Royal Oak-based Tomkiw Mackewich PLC. That’s because it has not yet been established that the mural is “in danger” because Princeton Enterprises has not yet determined what it specifically it will do with the building —sell it or redevelop it.

Tempest in a teapot? Attention grab? Or valid artistic argument?

[Johnnny5]

I can't read the full article, but unless this artist had an agreement with the property owners guaranteeing that the artwork was to stay for a predetermined amount of time, I can't see how she has a foot to stand on legally.

[archfan]

From the article: Her contract with the building's owner in 2009 said that the mural would stay up at least 10 years. Current law may give her rights for longer, according to her lawyer.

[belleislerunner]

If Princeton was smart - they'd just get a couple lifts and paint the entire thing brown this weekend, a la cleaning up the hideous spilled graffiti.

[Dan Wesson]

Aesthetically it sucks.

[Scottathew]

Well, if they had a 10 year agreement, then he needs to let it be for 10 years. Personally, I think it's horrible and ugly, but a contract is a contract.

[Honky Tonk]

I can't stand graffiti, and have no problem sentencing taggers to death, but I really like this work. It's clever, aesthetically pleasing, and an eye-catching attention grabber. She had/has a contract with Boydell and they sold the building to Princeton. It'll be interesting to see if the contract is still binding, and to what extent Boydell has responsibility to protect the artwork.

[noise]

Artistic merits aside [[I've always found it rather beautiful), copyright law provides for this type of argument.

While unfortunately an anti-American concept, we do have some "moral rights". The Visual Artists Rights Act [[now 26 years old) covers this very issue.

Look up the Ed Ruscha mural case. The mural was painted over without the artist's approval. He won the case, along with something like $1 million.

[AlanF]

> Princeton Enterprises, whose founder and CEO is Matt Lester, put the building up for auction last year [[it did not sell) Maybe one reason it did not sell is because the new owners would be restricted on what they could do with the building. It sounds like a bad decision on the owner's part to allow the property to be encumbered this way.

[Shai_Hulud]

I don't think it's the greatest mural ever but I do like it. Maybe she will get a few bucks or some recognition out of the deal, from her perspective, I'm sure it's worth a shot.

That being said, if someone is going to to build something that is actually economically productive and that requires holes then holes it is.

[warsaw7]

If Princeton was smart - they'd just get a couple lifts and paint the entire thing brown this weekend, a la cleaning up the hideous spilled graffiti.

If they were smart? What does that even mean? Did you not read the article? It clearly states the piece cannot be touched for 10 years.

This could go to court and be sorted out, instead you suggest they go and completely deface the mural where most likely they will be faced with a multitude of lawsuits.

Please think before you decide to write an ignorant post. And yes it is a mural not graffiti.

[Wesley Mouch]

If there was an agreement, then it should be valid. The artists work may be garbage, but we're talking about this building. And that proves that the artwork has made the building more 'visible' and thus potentially more valuable. The owner got benefit from the contract and the art. The details should be left to the courts to sort out -- but I see the claim as reasonable.

[MSUguy]

If Princeton was smart - they'd just get a couple lifts and paint the entire thing brown this weekend, a la cleaning up the hideous spilled graffiti.

That would be incredibly stupid that wasn't graffiti this commissioned work of art.


And it should be pointed out she's just not looking to uphold the contract, but protect it perpetuity under VARA which affords certain works of art a copyright protection that does not the work to destroyed..

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ural/78350614/

[drjeff]

This one is far better than the stupid whales on the Broderick building.

[jackie5275]

If there was an agreement, then it should be valid. The artists work may be garbage, but we're talking about this building. And that proves that the artwork has made the building more 'visible' and thus potentially more valuable. The owner got benefit from the contract and the art. The details should be left to the courts to sort out -- but I see the claim as reasonable.

I don't see what value it added to the building. It didn't sell at auction.

[canuck]

If Princeton was smart - they'd just get a couple lifts and paint the entire thing brown this weekend, a la cleaning up the hideous spilled graffiti.

If you go back a few months to October, you will recognize this comment about the Columbus statue being defaced by thugs. It was by you;

I'm surprised they haven't found the perps yet - I actually think it was part of a more organized group.

Sunday I was driving in Dearborn - right off Michigan Ave/94 and I meant to be on Ford Road. So I turned right on Oakman Blvd between Michigan and Ford. There is a Christopher Columbus head bust there in the median on Oakman Blvs that was also similarly defaced and still with the red oozing. Someone is trying to get attention by thuggery.

[gnome]

Detroit: where rainbows come to die.

[KJ5]

I prefer to call it a Technicolor Waterfall myself. This is going to be a fun thread; I can tell already. More interesting than the Shepard Fairey case to me.

[3WC]

I would be helpful if we had some important factual information.

First, one would have to determine if there was an enforceable contract. Did the artist pay the building owner any consideration for her use of the building? If there was no consideration [[which can be cash or other types of benefits) then the contract would not be enforceable.

The contract to be enforceable would have to be in writing and contain all material terms: compensation, definite term and so forth.

If it was written and contractually enforceable, was it recorded with the register of deeds? If not the artist has a big problem. Since her alleged rights constitute a major burden on the building's owner, it would have the same status as a lien in my opinion. If not recorded, it would be junior to a previously recorded mortgage which could be foreclosed and terminate the artist's rights.

Further, if the new owner was not aware of the artist's claimed rights when it bought the building, because those rights were not recorded, then I do not believe it would be bound by any contract.

I can see major multi-party litigation resulting. A title company could have liability to the owner but would probably have offsetting claims -vs- the seller. The buyer would have a claim against the seller if the contract [[if there is one) was not disclosed.

Did the artist get permission from the city under the sign or similar ordinance? If not it may be illegal and subject to removal.

I don't know anything about the federal law but I can't imagine it's enforceable as the artist alleges which would give her perpetual rights; I think that would constitute an impermissible taking or something analogous.

If I were the owner I would just drape that wall in a large canvas so nobody could see the damned thing. I doubt if any law would prevent the owner from doing that. Maybe even put a real painting on the canvas.

This could get interesting.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't see what value it added to the building. It didn't sell at auction.

My point was that the discussion about the artwork has clearly made the building something people talk about. We're talking about it, aren't we?

[3WC]

Yes, people talk about plane crashes but that doesn't stimulate people to take plane trips.

[GPCharles]

A title company could have liability to the owner but would probably have offsetting claims -vs- the seller.

Only if there was some document of record setting forth the "rights" of the artist. Title companies specifically disclaim any liability for items which are not of record.

[Lowell]

I would be helpful if we had some important factual information.

First, one would have to determine if there was an enforceable contract. Did the artist pay the building owner any consideration for her use of the building? If there was no consideration [[which can be cash or other types of benefits) then the contract would not be enforceable.

The contract to be enforceable would have to be in writing and contain all material terms: compensation, definite term and so forth.

If it was written and contractually enforceable, was it recorded with the register of deeds? If not the artist has a big problem. Since her alleged rights constitute a major burden on the building's owner, it would have the same status as a lien in my opinion. If not recorded, it would be junior to a previously recorded mortgage which could be foreclosed and terminate the artist's rights.

Further, if the new owner was not aware of the artist's claimed rights when it bought the building, because those rights were not recorded, then I do not believe it would be bound by any contract.

I can see major multi-party litigation resulting. A title company could have liability to the owner but would probably have offsetting claims -vs- the seller. The buyer would have a claim against the seller if the contract [[if there is one) was not disclosed.

Did the artist get permission from the city under the sign or similar ordinance? If not it may be illegal and subject to removal.

I don't know anything about the federal law but I can't imagine it's enforceable as the artist alleges which would give her perpetual rights; I think that would constitute an impermissible taking or something analogous.

If I were the owner I would just drape that wall in a large canvas so nobody could see the damned thing. I doubt if any law would prevent the owner from doing that. Maybe even put a real painting on the canvas.

This could get interesting.

Great explanation and points.

Out of curiosity I just read entire the lawsuit document [view it here] and some vague points stood out.

28. Princeton has reached out to Craig, offering to pay her a small, token sum of money in exchange for her rights to the mural. The company has not represented that it plans to respect the integrity of Craig’s work under VARA in any of its own potential construction plans. Nor has the company represented that it will communicate the VARA protections for the mural as part of any sale agreement with potential buyers.

29. Princeton has repeatedly threatened Craig with outright or partial destruction of The Illuminated Mural as it attempts to convince her to sign away her rights under VARA.

I'm no lawyer but unless there are written documents or corroborating witnesses of the alleged threats this seems very thin.

In the request for relief section:

Declare that the plaintiff has the right under the Visual Artists Rights Act to prevent any intentional or negligent destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of The Illuminated Mural for a period consisting of her individual lifetime;

Knowing the history of some shady developers I am not sure I would want that in a contract.

And of course the second to last line speaks volumes.

C. Award the plaintiff her reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees;

And in full disclosure I have had mural painted over too.

[GPCharles]

I note that the alleged contract with Boydell, although cited in the Complaint, was not attached as an Exibit, which would be the normal procedure in filing a federal lawsuit.

I hope that she made arrangements to collect all of the paint that ran down the side of the building to ground level, thereby avoiding the possibility of "dumping" any hazardous material [[paint sludge) on and into the ground as a result of her painting activities.

Update: I checked the federal court file and the alleged contract with Boydell was not attached to the filed complaint.

2:16-cv-10027-SFC-SDD Craig v. Princeton Enterprises LLC.
Sean F. Cox, presiding
Stephanie Dawkins Davis, referral
Date filed: 01/05/2016
Date of last filing: 01/05/2016

[jackie5275]

I note that the alleged contract with Boydell, although cited in the Complaint, was not attached as an Exibit, which would be the normal procedure in filing a federal lawsuit.

I hope that she made arrangements to collect all of the paint that ran down the side of the building to ground level, thereby avoiding the possibility of "dumping" any hazardous material [[paint sludge) on and into the ground as a result of her painting activities.

Update: I checked the federal court file and the alleged contract with Boydell was not attached to the filed complaint.

2:16-cv-10027-SFC-SDD Craig v. Princeton Enterprises LLC.
Sean F. Cox, presiding
Stephanie Dawkins Davis, referral
Date filed: 01/05/2016
Date of last filing: 01/05/2016

I work near there and drive by it often, even as it was being painted. I remember there was some tarp covering the ground to protect it.