Tag: VARA

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).

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.

Judges Just Don’t Like VARA and Applied art

The Burning Man installation, "La Contessa"
The Burning Man installation, “La Contessa”

Daniel Grant reports on a recent Visual Artists Rights Act case involving the Burning Man re-purposed bus known as La Contessa.

A recent court decision in Nevada raises this question and, perhaps more fundamentally, the issue of whether or not VARA might need to be rewritten or updated to account for a broader definition of art. On June 8 of this year, a three-member Appeals Court panel affirmed a 2009 lower court ruling that called the demolition of a refashioned school bus—turned into a Spanish pirate ship on wheels and used for events as part of the annual Burning Man late-August to early-September festival in Black Rock Desert, Nevada between 2002 and 2005—not a violation of VARA, because the vehicle in its new form did not constitute fine art but “applied art.”

The 16’ x 60’ pirate ship, called La Contessa, was created by two artists, Simon Cheffins and Gregory Jones, who transformed an out-of-commission school bus into a replica 16th century Spanish galleon that included a hull, decking, masts, and a hand-crafted figurehead. La Contessa added to the sometime circus nature of Burning Man, used for rides, marching band performances, children’s treasure hunts and even two weddings. After the conclusion of the festival, the vehicle was put into storage on nearby land controlled by a woman, Joan Grant, with a lifetime tenancy of the property. However, in 2005, Grant’s home burned down and she abandoned her tenancy, which was then taken over by a limited liability company controlled by a Michael Stewart. “La Contessa” remained on the property and was not reclaimed by Cheffins and Jones the following year, and in late 2006 Stewart dismantled and then burned the wooden structure so that a scrap metal dealer could remove the underlying school bus. In 2009, the artists brought a VARA lawsuit against Stewart, losing in district court and more recently on appeal. “The focus of our inquiry should be on whether the object in question originally was—and continues to be—utilitarian in nature,” the Appeals Court ruled, although noting that the ship has “some artistic or aesthetic merit.”

In a concurring opinion, one of the three judges, Margaret McKeown, expressed concern that the ruling being issued was not workable and required “a more nuanced definition of ‘applied art’ that balances between the risk of unduly restricting VARA’s reach and the risks of turning judges into art critics.”

Daniel Grant, The More Art Changes, the More Urgent an Update to the Visual Artists’ Rights Act Is, Observer (Aug. 3, 2016), http://observer.com/2016/08/the-more-art-changes-the-more-urgent-an-update-to-the-visual-rights-act-becomes/.
CHEFFINS v. Stewart, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2016 – Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7731083587113005243&q=la+contessa+visual+artists+rights+act&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44.
CHEFFINS v. Stewart, Dist. Court, D. Nevada 2011 – Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10972864568398950890&q=la+contessa+visual+artists+rights+act&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44.