MCLA NEWSLETTER

MURALS UNDER ATTACK

by Robin Dunitz

Hearing about murals under attack is no big surprise for us mural lovers. Two current situations of murals under siege illustrate both their vulnerability and the support that can sometimes save (or resurrect) them. In mid-June a federal judge in Los Angeles ordered two Ventura businessmen who had painted over a mural called "It's Not Cool to Target Kids" to pay artist MB Hanrahan $48,488 [see accompanying article, this page--Ed]. The ruling was based on the Visual Artists' Rights Act of 1990, the same law used in the precedent-setting decision that awarded Kent Twitchell $175,000 in 1992 after the destruction of his "Old Woman of the Freeway." The Ventura mural, which featured an anti-tobacco and alcohol message and measured 12' x 72', was painted in 1994 by Hanrahan with local youth and community members in downtown Ventura at 580 North Ventura Avenue. The theme and content were developed in drawing sessions with local continuation high school students. In 1996 it was chosen as one of 50 winners in a national contest for youth-inspired anti-alcohol and anti-drug projects in 1996. Enlarged photographs of the mural were displayed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. that same year. According to Hanrahan, "The mural was painted in my neighborhood on an avenue disproportionately exposed to liquor stores, as well as alcohol and tobacco advertising. The images depict youth "taking back" public space with messages of their own--stopping the violence, reaching out to the homeless, reconnecting to cultural and historical roots, encouraging positive, enriching activities."

MB Hanrahan, "It's Not Cool to Target Kids," 12 x 72', Ventura, 1994. Beall Art Studio, Untitled, one of 17 tile and mosaic murals at SeaCliff Village, Huntington Beach, ca. 1970s.

Hanrahan is now preparing to restore the mural. She is thinking of adding a visual statement against censoring art--especially the expressions of young people, and some commentary regarding the fatal and damaging hate crimes taking place in Ventura County and around the country. At SeaCliff Village in Huntington Beach, another mural drama is underway. Shea Properties, a private developer, recently received approval from the city to demolish the 25-year-old shopping center in late August or early September as part of a major renovation of the 20-acre site. Around the rustic outdoor center are 17 mosaic and tile murals, as well as metal sculptures and other art works and educational displays, all based on the theme of birds. There are portraits of individual sea birds, an image based on "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," and scenes of birds in flight. A large floor tile map mural depicts "Three Major Systems of Migration in the World." Most of the panels are accompanied by lengthy explanatory captions, often credited to the Los Angeles Natural History Museum. The museum also donated display cases with stuffed birds. The art works were done in the mid-1970s by the Beall Art Studio, then located in Torrance. Barbara Beall and her associates also created murals and other decorations for Encino Town and Country Shopping Center in the San Fernando Valley, the Autry Museum, Panda Inn Restaurants, Epcot Center in Florida, Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and many others. In 1994, Barbara Beall moved her business to Santa Barbara. The city of Huntington Beach Cultural Affairs Dept. initiated a "SeaCliff Public Art Committee" to raise funds to save at least some of the murals. How much of the art is saved depends on how much money is raised. The developer has pledged $250,000. Local fundraising events are being held. There is talk of asking residents to accept an assessment on their water bill. What will be done with the rescued murals is still up in the air. The developer has not agreed to integrate them into his planned new and expanded mixed-use mall.

ART PRESERVATION CASE COMPENSATES
VENTURA MURALIST IN PAINT-OVER CASE

by Robert Rootenberg

Robert Rootenberg, a member of MCLA's Board of Directors and an attorney, recently represented muralist MB Hanrahan's community mural, "It's Not Cool to Target Kids" in the latest test of California's Art Preservation law and the Federal Visual Artists Rights Act. This is his account of the events and importance of the case--Ed.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard A. Paez ordered two Ventura, CA liquor store owners, who painted over a community mural, to pay the mural's creator nearly $50,000 in damages. He further ordered an injunction to permit the artist, MB Hanrahan, to repaint the mural at the same location. Painted in 1994 [please see accompanying article, "Murals Under Attack" on this page--Ed.], in July 1997 Hanrahan received word that the new owners of the liquor store were planning to paint the mural over. She requested that they refrain from taking any action until she could determine her legal rights. The storeowners allegedly agreed to this, but in August they whitewashed approximately one-third of the mural. The area was replaced by a painting of an American flag with fifty-seven stars and the message, "Fourth of July Independence Day, Welcome to Avenue Liquor." Their actions prompted numerous news articles and radio coverage locally. Ventura residents held a rally to express support for the mural. I brought the lawsuit in October, 1997 under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), an amendment to the Copyright Act that gives an artist protection from damage or destruction. In March, 1998 a bench trial was held, and the Court ruled on June 3 that the mural should have never been touched. Ralph E. Lerner and Judith Bresler wrote, "The term 'moral rights' has its origins in the civil law and is a translation of the French le droit moral, which is meant to capture those rights of a spiritual, non-economic and personal nature. The rights spring from a belief that an artist in the process of creation injects his spirit into the work and that the artist's personality, as well as the integrity of the work, should therefore be protected and preserved" in Art Law 417 (1989) as part of their commentary on the case Carter v. Helmsley-Spear. VARA's statutory scheme authorizes an artist to seek recovery for the destruction of artwork if the destruction affected their honor or reputation. An award can be sought to compensate for actual damages or statutory damages of at least $500 up to $20,000. If the infringement or destruction of the art is committed willfully in the judgement of the court, the statutory damage award can go up to a maximum of $100,000. The Court, in the Hanrahan case, found the mural to be a work of "recognized stature," and also that the artist had suffered damage to her reputation, given her prominent activity in the Ventura community. The total settlement thus consists of $15,000 for the harm done to the artist, $15,000 to restore the mural, and about $18,000 in costs and attorney's fees. Finally the defendents were enjoined from committing further damage to the mural or from interfering with Hanrahan's right to restore the work. There is an important balance between the property rights of building owners and the moral rights of an artist. More works of art are incorporated into shopping centers, malls, and entertainment complexes than ever before. Muralists should take great care to understand the nature and extent of the rights held under VARA, which exists independently from ownership of the work of art itself or its copyright. As an artist, you can conceivably control the development or use of a building by virtue of the art you incorporate into that building. . . .so, get to work!