“Rainbow Vomit” mural lawsuit

[3WC]

I love this case.

I am told that Michigan Court Rules require that any Complaint based in whole or part on a written contract must have the contract attached as an exhibit. I presume but don't know for sure that the Federal Rules of Procedure require the same thing.

The Complaint [[thanks Lowell for posting a link to it) claims that the mural is incorporated into and made it part of the building. That makes it real property as a matter of law I believe and therefore it should be assessed on a portion of its true market value. The Assessor must determine its value and assess taxes against the artist for an appropriate value since it was painted, plus interest and penalties. If she fights an assessment or gives a small monetary value it will diminish or eliminate and damages she may claim if the owner destroys the mural.

According to her Complaint, the Act she relies on for the right during her lifetime to burden the building with her mural states that "any intentional mutilation or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation." So, let's say the owner destroys the mural. How would that prejudice her "honor or reputation?


If I were the owner I'd paint the remainder of that side of the building [[on both sides of her mural) with my own mural, just like hers, so you can't tell hers from mine. Maybe start a contest to come up with the best competing mural. Endless fun.

[Gistok]

I will admit to being totally clueless when it comes to building owner vs. artists rights on murals painted on building walls. And part of the reason is that different murals are handled differently... or do some just have a contractual lifespan specified, while others were poorly written without a time specific clause, or no contract at all?

This lawsuit seems a bit confusing to me... especially when we see the grief that building owners would have to go thru in order to tamper with or remove said mural. I find it hard to believe that a building owner would give up the right to make changes to his building once a mural is in place... or are murals such as this one and the Wyland "Whales" mural just exceptions to the rule?

One mural that always intrigued me was the one along the north wall of the Park Shelton Apts. just north of the DIA as written about here. Put up in 1974, it has not been well maintained, and since half covered up with a new parking structure next door.
http://art-musicforum.blogspot.com/2...ton-mural.html

It's not surprising how many murals there are in Detroit... and here are some of the more colorful ones. By far my favorite of these 18 murals is #9 on Orleans St., a "floral feast"....
http://www.dailydetroit.com/2015/09/...-in-the-world/

One of my favorite downtown murals is one built along the back side of the Detroit Opera House facing Broadway. This mural shows the Procenium arch framing the stage of the Opera House, with the central stage area painted black... to be overlaid with a banner of whatever is being shown at the Opera House at the time. Probably the most tasteful way to combine mural artwork and billboard design.
http://photos.mlive.com/detroit/2015...use_mural.html

[Lowell]

"I'm bringing this lawsuit to stand up for the rights of artists everywhere, and for the interests of Detroit's creative entrepreneurs, like myself, who have invested in the arts, public art and art education," she said in a statement last week.

Grandiose words but the in fact the opposite is more likely. An unintended consequence of what this person has done by launching this publicity-garnering lawsuit will be to make it far more difficult for other artists to get the opportunity that she got, not to mention hindering restoration investment potential of vacant and abandoned properties.

"Building owners and buyers, beware," said Andrey Tomkiw, managing partner of Royal Oak-based law firm Tomkiw Mackewich PLC. "If at some point in time you don't particularly care what happens to an abandoned building that you own and you don't know about VARA, you may be caught in a quandary down the line."

It's all very gray and the building owners may have a this openeing.

One of the gray areas, Lipp said, is a provision that allows a building owner to remove a mural or other piece of visual art if he or she has notified the artist of the intent to do so and given the artist the required 90 days to "safely" remove the art themselves without destroying or harming it.

Artists' rights concerns could hinder investors in city real estate, attorneys say

[jt1]

I think the new owner should just put a billboard next to it covering the entire thing. Seems to me the artist is in this for the publicity and she is getting a ton of it free.

My money also says that she lives in Detroit but lists a suburban residence for tax and insurance purposes.

[bust]

Grandiose words but the in fact the opposite is more likely. An unintended consequence of what this person has done by launching this publicity-garnering lawsuit will be to make it far more difficult for other artists to get the opportunity that she got, not to mention hindering restoration investment potential of vacant and abandoned properties.

It's all very gray and the building owners may have a this openeing.

Artists' rights concerns could hinder investors in city real estate, attorneys say

I totally agree.

Or the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction and future contracts for murals will explicitly curtail all artist's rights.

I suggest there should be a sensible middle ground.

No comment on the art, I'm no fan of this artist.

[3WC]

It appears that under the federal law cited that graffiti/spray can artists have rights that would prevent the City from fining building owners who don't remove it from their buildings. Boy would I like to see somebody raise that defense. [[By the way, the graffiti ordinance in Detroit is fatally flawed and it's amazing they convict any building owners.)

[rex]

Yea that was commissioned work and she was paid a lot to do it.

[G-DDT]

As a person who has been commissioned to do artwork for others. It is a matter of whether the commissioner gave the artist "full artistic license" or was quite specific for the given work.

I was once asked to paint a down-homey scene of friends gathering from "the first person perspective of the commissioner". The money I was fronted was not enough to cover materials, as I had bills to pay, yet, I was able to pull it off. Yet, I found out from others that the commissioner took some passive-aggressively grumbled umbrage against what I did, because she was not featured in the work [[which would defeat the whole purpose of a first person perspective-as was explicitly explained to me-versus a complete group portrait versus an over-the-shoulder angle, etc.). I later found it moldering in her basement, discarded much like she did to another earlier piece [[that she claimed she liked) I did for her. A fine example of how people who don't really grasp basic fundamentals of art do not know how to communicate the visions they expect the artist to bring forth to them.

Yet, if the possibility of new owners were to step in, yeah, they can situate a billboard over it, which can always be removed later, in which folks would say "Yow! I forgot that was there" [[an "Oh yeaaah" thread for the Dy-ers of 2032). Personally, I'm not too wild over that mural.

When one does a mural you take risks you accept as being part of it's exposure. Of the four murals I've been involved in: one was torn down [[oddly enough by someone now working at the Detroit Contemporary who also discarded a piece I gave them earlier. There! I just mentioned my two biggest critics, now in this thread.), one burned down with the house that had it, one was painted with the full knowledge that the person was losing their deposit, and the next folks would most likely paint over it, and the same could be said for one that may not be there anymore in Hamtramck.

[G-DDT]

Also, the whales at the Broderick are Wyland pieces. Many cities have them, but some have let them go into faded disregard. They kind of hearken back to a day of Nagel prints and folks listening to Wham [[ugh.).

The one in Boston is alright. If anyone deserves it, it would be an Oceanic region like they have around there.