Street art is by its very nature temporary – painted on public walls and spaces, artists don’t always have express permission to make street art, and most don’t have any kind of contract or set of rights in place. But one Detroit street artist may have found a remedy for keeping her street art where it belongs, using the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 as her defense. If she wins, this could mean that other street artists may be able to do the same when their work is at risk of being covered up or torn down. Here, we’ll discuss what artists need to know about the Visual Artists Rights Act.
Up-and-coming Detroit-based artist Katherine Craig has gained plenty of notoriety for her street mural, known as The Illuminated Mural, which she created in 2009. Since then, the work has become a symbol of Detroit’s vibrancy as a thriving art community, depicting a “bleeding rainbow” of colored paints dripped across a blue background. Funded by the College of Creative Studies’ Community and Public Arts program, Craig scouted various buildings for her mural before she settled and signed a contract with the Boyell Development Corporation, who owned a building in the Northend neighborhood of Detroit.
Under the terms of the contract, the mural was intended “to be long lasting for the Northend community,” and stated that the mural would remain on the building for at minimum a ten-year time period. Since its creation, Craig’s career has been catapulted: the mural was featured in various documentaries, art shows, and music videos. It’s widely recognized as one of Detroit’s most stunning works of public art.
Trouble ensued when the building was subsequently sold to another development corporation in January 2015. The new owners announced they would be extensively renovating and redeveloping the building as apartments, with a plan to significantly alter the mural in order to achieve their desired new use. Not only does Craig now assert that their plan to alter the mural would be contradictory to her original contract, she’s also claiming that under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), Craig has a lifetime right to the integrity and intactness of the work. But is Craig right? Would VARA really protect Craig’s work for the duration of her lifetime? Do street artists really have that much control over their work when it’s mounted on public spaces?
Moral Rights are Key to Understanding the Visual Artists Rights Act
The Visual Artists Rights Act was created as an extension of the 1976 Copyright Act in 1990 in order to grant statutory moral rights to artists over their work. Having a “moral” right in a work may sound odd, but it essentially means that an artist has control over the integrity of the work. This can include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or under a pseudonym, and the right to bar the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation. Interestingly, anything else that may detract from the artist’s relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist’s possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play – that means that even after an artist sells a work to a collector, he can assert his moral rights over the work if the collector proposes changing the work in a substantial way.
Affording artists a moral right in copyrighted artistic works first originated in Europe in 1928, where it’s not possible to assign or waive your moral right in a work. Obviously the U.S. laws on moral rights weren’t a major priority, since copyright law in the United States emphasizes protection of financial reward over protection of creative attribution. But when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, its signatories advised that something must be done to get those moral rights in check – and the Visual Artists Rights Act was the solution.
VARA: The U.S.’s Response to Moral Rights Copyright Doctrines
Under the Visual Artists Rights Act, works of art that meet certain requirements afford their authors additional moral rights in the works, regardless of any subsequent physical ownership of the work itself, or regardless of who holds the copyright to the work. Like in our example above, a painter may insist on proper attribution of his painting, and in some instances may sue the owner of the physical painting for destroying the painting even if the owner of the painting lawfully owned it.
VARA grants copyright holders in artworks these exclusive rights:
- right to claim authorship
- right to prevent the use of one’s name on any work the author did not create
- right to prevent use of one’s name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation
- right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author’s honor or reputation
But VARA doesn’t grant an overarching moral right to an artist’s work – instead, it requires that a work is of a certain class in order to be granted protection. VARA provides its protection only to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and still photographic images produced for exhibition only.
Because VARA’s application is limited to visual works that fall within a narrowly defined category, VARA imposes substantial restrictions on any modification or removal of those works. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing, which as we know is something that’s not generally permitted in Europe. Another exception would come into play if the work is considered a “work made for hire,” meaning that the artist wouldn’t hold a copyright in the work. As we’ve discussed extensively on Art Law Journal, the person who orders a work-for-hire owns the copyright in the work. However, per VARA’s requirements, an artist can still assert a moral right over a work he does not own a copyright in.
How VARA Affects Public Works
An artist’s VARA rights have been extensively debated when it comes to public works. Absent a waiver, artists could effectively veto decisions to remove their structures from their benefactor’s land. In a 2006 decision involving public sculptures that were removed from the park for which they were created, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the Visual Artists Rights Act does not protect location as a component of site-specific work. VARA covered works can be moved as long as the move does not constitute “destruction, distortion, or mutilation.”
The court’s treatment of public works under VARA suggests that street art should unequivocally be protected under VARA laws, especially when the work was not commissioned by the owner of the building. In Craig’s case, she received a grant from a public institution to create the work, but she was given full control over where and what she would paint. Therefore, the new owner of the building can’t really alter the building, because doing so would be in direct violation of VARA and copyright laws, since he doesn’t own the artistic copyright in Craig’s work.
Similarly, street artists should be aware that public commissions or grants often aren’t roadblocks to asserting your moral rights to the integrity of your work under VARA. Being offered public funds to have the means to create street art is NOT the same as being commissioned by the owner of a building to paint a giant mural. In the latter case, you’ve been hired. In the former, you’ve simply been given a hand. Likewise, street artists should always review any documentation associated with public grants to ensure that there aren’t any waiver clauses that would strip you of your VARA rights. As long as you haven’t waived the right, and your work is in a public space, it’s likely that your street art could live on forever.
Has your work ever been painted over or destroyed? We want to know about it. Leave your comments below.