Tag: Moral Rights

A Whale of a Moral Rights Claim in Dallas

Aerial view of a cityscape featuring tall skyscrapers, a large blue mural on a building, and a parking lot with several parked cars.
Julio Cortez/Associated Press

A large mural depicting dolphins swimming in the ocean, located on the side of a building. The mural showcases a blue water scene with clouds and marine life, set against an urban backdrop with a parking lot filled with cars.
History of the Dallas, Texas Wyland Whaling Wall 82
-Ocean Life
Whaling wall 82
Texas Utilities Building
505 Akard Street Dallas, Texas
Back: 164 Feet Long x 82 Feet High
Side: 50 Feet Long x 78 Feet High
Dedicated April 16, 1999

For nearly three decades, Wyland’s Whaling Wall 82, also known as Ocean Life, covered two sides of a downtown Dallas parking garage at 505 N. Akard Street. Painted in 1999, the mural showed blue whales and other marine life swimming across a landlocked city. Then, ahead of the 2026 World Cup, the whales began to disappear under blue paint.

The plan, apparently, was to replace Wyland’s mural with World Cup-related images. Dallas and North Texas are preparing to host nine matches, more than any other World Cup host city. The problem is what had to be erased to make the gesture possible.

The reporting has been especially grim because the loss seems to have resulted less from one dramatic act of hostility than from a chain of institutional shrugging. Someone identified the wall as a good site. Someone noted that the mural was old. Someone checked whether it was part of the City of Dallas public art collection. It was not. Someone apparently assumed that was enough. And then, as Robert Wilonsky wrote in the Dallas Morning News, “someone said: Here’s a wall you can probably paint over. And because no one else said: No.”

Wyland says he was not consulted before the work was painted over. His lawyers have reportedly issued a cease-and-desist letter invoking the Visual Artists Rights Act, the federal moral rights statute that protects some works of visual art from intentional destruction, distortion, mutilation, or modification. The legal questions will turn on facts that are not yet fully public: whether there was any waiver, what agreements governed the original installation, who controlled the wall, and whether the mural qualifies as a work of recognized stature.

But if public recognition matters, the reaction to the erasure is itself part of the story. A work does not have to be in a city collection to matter to a city.

That distinction is important. Public art is not only the art a city formally owns. It is also the art a public comes to know. A mural can become part of a place even if it sits on private property.

The World Cup angle makes the whole episode sharper. Mega-events arrive wrapped in the language of unity, celebration, legacy, and global connection. They also arrive with deadlines, sponsors, temporary beautification, and a tendency to flatten local meaning into marketable spectacle. Cities are asked to show off for outsiders. Too often, that means clearing away the awkward, faded, beloved, or locally specific thing and replacing it with something smoother.

There is also a wider unease surrounding the U.S. hosting of the World Cup this year. Reports suggest that hotel bookings in many U.S. host cities are softer than expected. AP reported that hotel demand has been lighter than anticipated in most of the eleven U.S. host cities, with operators pointing to international travel concerns, visa delays, high ticket prices, and transit costs. Al Jazeera, citing an AHLA survey, reported that many hotel operators saw bookings below initial forecasts, with visa barriers and geopolitical concerns among the cited reasons.

That matters because the World Cup is supposed to be an invitation. Yet the United States is hosting it at a moment when many people have good reason to ask what kind of invitation is being extended.

Immigration enforcement is part of that anxiety. The federal government has reportedly left open the possibility that ICE activity could occur around World Cup events. And this tournament is arriving after a the brutality of immigration enforcement in which the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis became symbols of state violence.

So when Dallas paints over a beloved mural to make room for World Cup imagery, the episode lands in an already uneasy atmosphere. It is not only about marine conservation. It is about the strange promise that a mega-event will showcase local culture while the machinery of preparation helps erase it.

There were obvious alternatives. Caitlin Clark at D Magazine asked the simplest question: why not use a vinyl banner? The World Cup lasts 39 days. The mural had previously been covered by advertising and later re-emerged. A temporary covering would have allowed Dallas to celebrate the tournament without permanently destroying a work that had become part of the city’s visual fabric.

Instead, Dallas now has a legal controversy, an angry artist, national attention, and a half-erased mural. Organizers have said that a portion of Wyland’s mural will be preserved as a tribute. But preserving a remnant after painting over the work is a strange kind of tribute. It is a bit like knocking down a historic building and saving a doorknob.

This story may become an important VARA dispute. It may tell us something about murals, private property, public memory, and the continuing importance of moral rights in the United States. But even before the legal issues are resolved, the cultural lesson is clear enough.

If a city wants to host the world, it should begin by paying attention to what its own people already value. The whales were not just old paint. They were part of Dallas’s public memory. And in trying to manufacture a legacy for a global event, the city may have destroyed one it already had.

Caitlin Clark, The Downtown Dallas Whale Mural Drama, Explained (updated May 18), D Magazine (last visited May 21, 2026).

Dallas Express, Cease-and-Desist Issued As Crews Cover Dallas Landmark Whale Mural For World Cup, Dallas Express (May 20, 2026).

Jesus Jiménez, A Beloved Whale Mural in Dallas Is Painted Over Ahead of the World Cup, The New York Times (May 19, 2026).

Robert Wilonsky, All the Mistakes that Led to the Extinction of Wyland’s Dallas Whale Mural, Dallas Morning News (May 18, 2026).

Jamie Stengle, An Outcry Erupts as a Whale Mural Beloved by Many in Dallas is Replaced with Art for the World Cup, AP News (May 19, 2026).

Urgent Legal Battle: Wyland Fights Dallas Mural Paint-Over, NewsRadio 1080 KRLD (last visited May 21, 2026).

Philip Marcelo, U.S. Hotel Operators Say Promised Boon from Hosting World Cup Hasn’t Materialized Yet, AP News (May 12, 2026).

AFP, Low U.S. Hotel Bookings Paint Grim Hospitality Picture at the World Cup, Al Jazeera (May 6, 2026).

Melissa Hellmann, Eight People Have Died in Dealings with ICE So Far in 2026. These Are Their Stories, The Guardian (Jan. 28, 2026).

Maanvi Singh & agencies, ICE Officer Charged over Shooting of Venezuelan Man in Minnesota, The Guardian (May 18, 2026).

Reuters, Minnesota Officials Charge ICE Agent in Shooting of Venezuelan Immigrant, Reuters (May 18, 2026).

What will happen to art made for the Black Lives Matter movement?

A BLM Mural painted on what I think are plywood panels at the Station Museum in Houston’s 3rd Ward.

Art works with and through social movements. It informs; works to inspire; and just generally supports collective action. In our current digitally connected age it is easier than ever now to document and share the proliferation of art meant to protest, encourage, and criticize the current state of institutional racism in the United States and elsewhere. I snapped a picture with my phone on a walk earlier this week in front of the Station Museum. We are in a way fortunate that so much of this art can be preserved, perhaps in only a limited way, by cell phone cameras and drones. But the physical objects may be left without a good means of preservation. What will happen to all these sanctioned and unsanctioned murals on plywood and buildings?

In July volunteers painted a Black Lives Matter mural on the street outside the site of the original Burns BBQ (Photo by: Godofredo A. Vásquez, Houston Chronicle / Staff photographer)

Alex Brady has written a thoughtful piece for Salon thinking about some of these questions. In Oakland, California, a handful of organizations like Oakland’s Black Cultural Zone and others are working to preserve some of these panels by storing the mural panels when they have been taken down:

Alongside other Black-led organizations and Black artists, BCZ is working with Oakland Endeavors, Oakland Art Murmur, and the Oakland Museum to de-install panels and store them in facilities throughout the city. And while many museums throughout the country are making efforts to highlight African-American history, the Oakland Museum and other ally organizations are taking their orders from BCZ when it comes to the influx of plywood murals and other street art in the city.

“We wanted to set it up such that we [BCZ] could create the infrastructure because the institutions typically have the infrastructure,” [Randolph] Belle said.

The BCZ is neither curating nor collecting but is currently storing 20 de-installed panels and anticipating more. The group has an online form for businesses, developers, and landlords to identify murals and artwork, and to notify BCZ when the panels get taken down so that the group can track the work, safely store it, and contact the artist(s) about desired next steps.

Oakland Endeavors, one of the organizations working with BCZ (Endeavors also worked with Wolfe-Goldsmith on Oakland’s downtown Black Lives Matter street mural) is standing by to store more, along with the other partner organizations.

Eventually, BCZ anticipates cataloguing and storing hundreds of panels.

Of course because artists and those who view it are a diverse group, some do not even want the art preserved or preserved in an institutionalized way. That of course means much of this art will be lost or destroyed.

Another interesting angle to consider is that much of this art is reproducing many of the same ideas, themes, and images. They seem to me to be working to use the tragic deaths and murders of people of color to advance collective action and effect a more just and equitable society. That seems to be the real overarching goal, and preservation of the artwork does seem to be a secondary consideration. But the art speaks to the moment, and it would be a shame if we are not left with the physical reminders of this social movement. As more and more cities are making the long-delayed and sensible decision to remove the racist symbols of the confederacy, these murals have taken their place in many cities. There are BLM murals and symbols of hope and solidarity all over my city, Houston, as the last few handful of confederate monuments are slowly being removed.

One remedy for artists who create these murals with permission, and if they achieve the nebulous status of “recognized stature” as the Visual Artists Rights Act requires may be entitled to certain rights of integrity and attribution should the murals be threatened with intentional destruction or mutilation. Those remedies are taking on increasing importance as arts lawyers and street artists slowly litigate life into the idea that artists are entitled to certain important rights that follow the significant works of art they create.

Victory for 5Pointz Artists in the Second Circuit

5pointz artworks being whitewashed in 2013

In a ruling which will likely feature in future art law coursebooks, the Second Circuit has affirmed a $6.75 million judgment against a real estate developer for whitewashing a number of murals at 5Pointz. This is a rare victory for artist’s moral rights in an American court.

The site became known as a prominent aerosol art haven in 2002 when the developer Gerald Wolkoff asked Jonathan Cohen to install some art on a warehouse in Long Island City in Queens. Cohen curated the space and had a rotation of various artists use the building. It attracted worldwide attention. It also displayed itself to passengers every time a 7 train would pass by:

As is often the case with moral rights cases that have been litigated under the Visual Artists Rights Act, changed circumstances for the building led to the deveoloper seeking to capitalize on the new-found gentrification of the neighborhood. In 2013 artists learned that Wolkoff was planning to destroy the warehouses to build a condominium complex. The artists sought landmark status and asked for an injunction under the Visual Artists Rights Act. That injunction was not granted, and rather than wait for the legal process to play out, or wait to let the artists preserve their works, Wolkoff whitewashed the art. That act probably did more harm to Wolkoff’s argument than any thing, with the district court finding the art had achieved recognized stature and imposing the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work (45 works in total) of art in order to sanction Wolkoff’s conduct and to vindicate the policy supporting the moral rights act.

Donn Zaretsky in commenting on the ruling wrote that the damages may have been the most interesting part of the ruling:

Now, it may be the facts of this case were so unique and so egregious that it won’t have a wider impact — basically what happened is that early in the litigation the artists got a TRO preventing the demolition of the site, it expired, and, while the district court was considering their application for a preliminary injunction to replace it, the developer had the work painted over, “without any genuine business need” to do so, “simply, as the district court found, an ‘act of pure pique and revenge.'” But the idea that significant statutory damages can be awarded in a VARA case even where actual damages can’t be proven could be a big deal.

The Art Law Blog

Moral rights are rights that have been around for a very long time. They originated in the French Revolutionary idea of ‘droit moral de l’auteur’, stemming from the idea that if art is harmed, the artist also is harmed.

I am always surprised when I encounter art lawyers and academics who are critical of the idea of moral rights. They will often make the argument that artists do not want or need moral rights, and developers like Wolkoff will not allow art anywhere near their buildings ever again. But this elides the reality, these condominium developments have as I understand it been built to take advantage of the newly gentrified neighborhood, and the new ‘luxury’ development will still be called 5 Pointz, and feature aerosol art. The art will happen no matter what, this ruling just gives the artists vindication for the personality of these artists that was bound up and integral in these images. Developers like Wolkoff claim that these moral rights damage their property rights; but a moral right is not an economic right. Instead it accounts for the psychological suffering which takes place when an artist’s art has been harmed in some way.

Rub on State-Enacted Resale Rights

Chuck Close, Self Portrait, 2000, in the Smithsonian Collection. Close unsuccesfully brought a lawsuit to collect royalyy payments under the California Resale Rights Act, but the law was held to be pre-empted by federal law by the Ninth Circuit in 2018.

Guy Rub (Ohio State University, Michael E. Moritz College of Law) has posted an article from a symposium issue of the Kentucky Law Journal on: Experimenting with State-Enacted Resale Rights.

Current federal law does not require sellers of fine art to pay a share of the sale price to the artists, although Congress and federal agencies have been debating the advantages and disadvantages of such a duty, commonly referred to as Artists’ Resale Rights (ARR), since the 1970s. What is often missing from this discourse is the role that state law might play in this ecosystem. This issue, and especially California’s 1976 ARR law, the only state-enacted ARR to date, is the focus of this Article. 

States are often said to be the laboratories of democracy as they can experiment with various legal rules and produce rich comparative empirical data. The Article explores whether states can be the laboratories of ARR as well. It reaches three conclusions: First, there is a vibrant debate concerning the impacts and overall desirability of resale royalties, but that debate is driven by relatively scarce empirical data. Second, if states decide to adopt ARR they can provide some of that missing information. Third, subject to minor restrictions, states are allowed to enact ARR legislation, and the recent Ninth Circuit decisions that held the California ARR act unconstitutional are, for the most part, misguided, as it does not fully recognize the important role that states play in the markets for creative goods.

Rub, Guy A., Experimenting With State-Enacted Resale Rights (June 20, 2019). 109 Kent. L. J. 647 (2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3413846

Two Moral Rights Suits over Public Murals

The now-destroyed Community Faces mural in Pittsburgh depicting artists, their relatives, and people from the community. Multiple artists created the work.

Artists have brought suit in Pittsburgh and Memphis over the destruction of public murals. Both suits involve the use of blighted buildings and spaces which have come under development. As these areas character changes, or as attitudes about the public art shift, City officials and landowners have removed, distorted, or even destroyed public murals.

In Memphis, as part of a 135 mural installation organized by Paint Memphis, seven murals drew the attention of Memphis City officials, and were painted over near the end of January in 2018 as part of a “miscommunication”.

Memphis City Council officials say they have received complaints about some of the murals, and want to allow residents to vet the murals before they are erected in public spaces.

A similar dispute involving mural artist Kyle Holbrook has taken place in Pittsburgh. Holbrook alleges that property owners, the city of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, and others have destroyed eight of his murals on walls and buildings.

Both suits use the federal moral rights law, the Visual Artists Rights Act as a basis for remedying destruction of murals and even attempting to enjoin further destruction.

Ryan Poe, Artists sue Memphis for failed attempt to scrub “satanic” murals, Commercial Appeal, April 26, 2018, https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/government/city/2018/04/26/artists-sue-memphis-failed-attempt-scrub-satanic-murals/555788002/ (last visited May 17, 2018).

Torsten Ove, Artist sues Pittsburgh, Allegheny County for destroying murals he created on their buildings, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 30, 2018, http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/art-architecture/2018/04/30/Mural-artist-Pittsburgh-Kyle-Holbrook-lawsuit-federal-Allegheny-County-destruction-contract/stories/201804300177 (last visited May 17, 2018).

Tree painting, moral right or an environmental message?

In 2013 the Houston Arts Alliance (HAA) commissioned artist Konstantin Dimopoulos to create an installation called “Painted Trees” in Houston. The installation used a series of crepe myrtles embedded in one of Houston’s traffic cloverleafs at Waugh and Memorial. Dimopoulos has undertaken similar blue tree projects internationally, hoping to raise awareness for deforestation and draw attention to trees we might otherwise ignore. Here’s a short video of the artist describing the art advocacy project:

Well the artist has been surprised to discover that the work has been reprised/plagiarized/re-celebrated/repeated. Many like me had likely assumed that the artist was repeating the project. Not so, this project was an initiative of the Houston Parks and Recreation department. They painted the same grove of trees, and another grouping, blue and green.

Here’s my own photo of one of the groups I took a few weeks ago:

The Houston Parks and Recreation department painted these crepe myrtles, image from March, 2018.

The art project was a popular surprise to most five years ago. Though It always struck me as odd that the artist and City invited selfie hunters to an area without sidewalks, where you had to dodge unfriendly cars to get a close look.

According to the City, the new project was meant to draw attention to wildflower and prairie plantings that have been done in the area.  The city plants wildflowers in the area most years, and this summer red phlox should bloom amid the green and blue trunks when the crepe myrtles are also blooming. A great thing to look at, and an improvement certainly over a sad strip of roadside mown grass. But has the city of Houston managed to violate the moral rights of Dimopoulos? Or will most of the attraction be owed to the work of mother nature? Texas arts blog Glasstire noted that Dimopoulos’ wife noted in a facebook comment that:

It’s Adele Dimopoulos here, Kon’s wife and business manager. We most certainly do know about the blue trees being copied by city Parks and we are in the process of addressing this through various channels.

We are aware that there is a much bigger issue of copyright and IP for all artists at stake here. So sit tight and let’s see what shakes down.

The artist claims to own rights in the special paint formula that he developed, which is temporary, harmless to the trees, and bright blue. In response Abel Gonzales, the parks department’s deputy director of greenspace management is quoted in the Houston Chronicle this morning that: “We thought we did our homework”, noting he cleared the paint project with parks department planners. And the formula was a new creation of a city employee, combining lime wash and pigment. The artist Dimopolous is quoted in this morning’s Houston Chronicle, and is not a fan:

“It looks horrible, and it really has no relevance anymore here”.

It seems mainly what Dimopoulos wants is an apology from the city, perhaps even removal of the pigment. ON the one hand I can certainly appreciate his position, but if his art was intended to bring attention to deforestation, the amount of water and harm to the trees perhaps shows he wasn’t all that interested in the environmental aspects of his projects. He really wanted individual attention as an artist. Nothing wrong with that of course, but when you have a relatively straightforward idea, that many other artists have likely had, perhaps you should be a little magnanimous when others attempt to carry forward your vision. Am I wrong, is the artist wrong? Let me know in the comments.

 

 

$6.7 Million Award for 5Pointz Artists

5Pointz before it was whitewashed

A federal court has held that the real estate developer Jerry Wolkoff is liable for intentionally destroying 45 works of art when they were whitewashed in 2013, amounting to a total award of $6.75 million dollars. The ruling comes as a bit of a surprise given the limited success of artists under the Visual Artists Rights Act in the past.

Jerry Wolkoff purchased the vacant factory in the 1970s in Brooklyn after manufacturing had left the area. Graffiti artists asked him for permission to display their art on the building in the 1990s, and he agreed. The building then became a haven for graffitie, even a renowned attraction. An artist Jonathan Cohen, otherwise known as Meres One, started acting as a curator of the space in 2002.

By 2013 the factory had become a valuable piece of real estate, and Wolkoff had plans to demolish the site and start a new development on the. The site had been much beloved by then, and so the artists brought suit to prevent the destruction of the art. That injunction was unsuccessful, and so Wolkoff immediately whitewashed the art, a willful act that seems to have been the primary driver for Judge Block’s scathing decision:

If not for Wolkoff’s insolence, these damages would not have been assessed. If he did not destroy 5Pointz until he received his permits and demolished it 10 months later, the Court would not have found that he had acted willfully. Given the degree of difficulty in proving actual damages, a modest amount of statutory damages would probably have been more in order.

The shame of it all is that since 5Pointz was a prominent tourist attraction the public would undoubtedly have thronged to say its goodbyes during those 10 months and gaze at the formidable works of aerosol art for the last time. It would have been a wonderful tribute for the artists that they richly deserved.

The ruling may be appealed, but the decision marks an important precedent for works of visual art and especially works of temporary art. Landscape art, graffiti, and other similar works may be impacted by the ruling.

On one hand this ruling stands as an obvious victory for the artists themselves. But taken in the broader context, will future property developers be wary about inviting graffiti artists? Perhaps street art has become so popular and ubiquitous now, that there will not be a chilling effect of future uses of derelict buildings for graffiti exhibitions like Cohen helped create.

Moral rights and property rights on trial in Brooklyn

5Pointz before it was whitewashed

Alan Feuer reports on the opening of the jury trial brought by artists whose works were removed from the 5Pointz building back in 2013. They are seeking a remedy for the infringement of their moral rights under a federal law called the Visual Artists Rights Act.

Eric Baum, a lawyer for the artists in his opening statement told the jury:

[T]hat they would hear from several art experts that the whitewashed graffiti was indeed of “recognized stature” and that Mr. Wolkoff, no matter how generous he had been with his buildings in the past, failed to give the artists the proper 90-day notice that 5Pointz was slated to come down. Mr. Baum added that his clients never wanted to sue; they wanted to save 5Pointz. But once the complex and the art had been destroyed, he said, they had only two choices: ask for money or do nothing.

The buildings developer, Jerry Wolkoff was represented by David Ebert who in his opening statement:

[A]cknowledged that 5Pointz was a “fantastic place” — one that Mr. Wolkoff helped create — but he argued that the law in question was irrelevant. “V.A.R.A. does not protect buildings,” he said. “It protects art.

The case is a rare instance of a moral rights claim brought on behalf of artists which has made it to the merits before a jury. Bringing claims in federal court is an expensive proposition, and few of these cases survive the summary judgment stage. The case will be fascinating to watch unfold.

 

  1. Alan Feuer, At Core of 5Pointz Trial: Is Graffiti Art Protected by Law?, The New York Times, October 17, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/nyregion/at-core-of-5pointz-trial-is-graffiti-art-protected-by-law.html (last visited Oct 18, 2017).

Student note on the blue wave experimental protest

The Spring issue of the Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property has published an interesting student note by Jaya Bajaj titled “Art, Copyright, and Activism: Could the Intersection of Environmental Art and Copyright Law Provide a New Avenue for Activists to protest Various Forms of Exploitation?” The piece works best as a thought experiment, and may be an argument used by the many detractors of moral rights for artists to further restrict the expansion of the still-developing series of rights for artists. But I find the article, and the experimental protest to be thoughtful and well-reasoned. Here’s the abstract:

In 2015, a group of activists led by Aviva Rahmani began an artistic venture known as “Blued Trees.” They painted blue sine waves onto trees along a proposed pipeline pathway, and subsequently filed for federal copyright registration. They hoped to use copyright law and the Visual Artists Rights Act as a sword against fossil fuel companies. Although the piece was destroyed later that year as part of the pipeline construction, the “Blued Trees” movement continues. This note will discuss Rahmani’s legal theory and consider this theory’s strengths and weaknesses. This experimental protest brings forth a number of unanswered questions about the nature of copyright law. It is no secret that contemporary art forms, and the mediums involved, are becoming increasingly diverse. Therefore, this note also seeks to address the merits and limitations of current copyright law in terms of environmental and installation art.

Jaya Bajaj, Art, Copyright, and Activism: Could the Intersection of Environmental Art and Copyright Law Provide a New Avenue for Activists to Protest Various Forms of Exploitation?, 15 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 53 (2017).

The Sad State of Moral Rights in the United States

Did Peter Doig paint this in 1976?
Did Peter Doig paint this in 1976?

Many nations assign to artists moral rights over their creations. One of the core moral rights is the right to claim or exclude works of art in your body of work. But not in the United States. NPR reports on the bizarre case involving Peter Doig and the art he’s trying to disclaim.

Federal Judge To Rule On Whether Peter Doig Painted Desert Landscape, NPR.org, http://www.npr.org/2016/08/23/491024818/federal-judge-to-rule-on-whether-peter-doig-painted-desert-landscape.