Handout 2

Murals at Risk

Case 1

In 1995, Marta Ayala, a renowned muralist in San Francisco, received a grant from the Mayor’s Office of Community Development to create a mural in the Mission District of San Francisco. The mural, The Ancestor’s Gift, depicted the blending of the Asian culture into the long-time Latino culture of the Mission District. Marta Ayala and Patricia Rose entered into a Site Agreement with the owners of a commercial building in the Mission District. The agreement named the building owner as caretaker for the mural and stipulated that the mural could not be altered, defaced or destroyed for five years. The building owner was also obligated to notify the artists if the building were to change ownership, as well as inform any new owners of the Site Agreement conditions. Ayala and Rose proceeded to paint the 1,155 square foot mural on the front wall of that building. It was widely respected and admired – so much so that even graffiti artists avoided defacing it.

In 1998, the building was leased to restaurateurs establishing a Chinese restaurant, and in 2000, the building was sold to new owners. Shortly after the change in ownership, the restaurant owners painted over the mural. Ayala happened to be passing the area and noticed that the mural had been covered. She took her copy of the Site Agreement to the restaurant owners and asked that they refrain from further painting, but they disregarded her request and added more coats of paint to the wall, thoroughly destroying the mural.

Ayala and Rose brought suit against the former building owners, the current building owners, and the tenants who operated the restaurant. Among the complaints registered by the artists was that the mural had never been professionally photographed, so a quality depiction of the mural did not exist. This denied the artists future opportunities to license reproductions of the work.

The artists asked for $100,000 in damages; payment for attorneys fees; the costs of pressing the suit; compensatory damages for the loss of future income that might have been possible through licensing; and punitive damages. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Case 2

In 1986, Jesus Campusano was awarded a grant by the City of San Francisco to create a mural on the Lilli Ann Building in the Mission District of that city. Elias Rocha assisted in the design, consulted on colors, and painted the mural, along with three other painters. This admired abstract, the city’s first, covered an area of the wall nearly four stories in height and one-half of the city block wide. It was featured in news articles, on postcards, and had been reproduced in books.

Shortly after the Lilli Ann Corporation sold the building to Robert Cort in 1998, Cort contracted to have the mural covered with a thick whitewash known as Kel-Bond.

Campusano had died but his partner, Rocha, and Campusano’s children brought suit against Cort for covering the “Lilli Ann” mural. Cort’s contention was that the wall had become susceptible to moisture, which was damaging interior walls. However, the plaintiffs alleged that Cort intended to sell advertising on the space that had been whitewashed.

The plaintiffs claimed that their rights had been violated under the Visual Arts Rights Act in that they had not been notified of Cort’s intention to cover the mural. Had they been notified, the plaintiffs claimed that the mural could have been removed from the building using a method where the paint is lifted from the surface and reapplied on another surface. An expert witness for Cort testified that this method would likely not have worked because the original wall surface was too irregular to lift the fragile paint. The witness further stated that even if the paint had been removed from the wall and adhered to another surface, the mural would have had a “jigsaw” appearance.

Regardless of whether the mural could have been moved, the plaintiffs contended that their VARA rights had been violated because Cort had not notified them of his intentions and, therefore, had denied the artists the ability to attempt to move the mural. The case was settled for $200,000.

Case 3

In 1997, two Ventura liquor store owners partially whitewashed the mural, “It’s Not Cool to Target Kids.” The store owners then painted a sign of their own depicting an American Flag (with 57 stars) and the wording, “Fourth of July Independence Day, Welcome to Avenue Liquor.” This action was particularly galling to some community members because the mural had been in response to the numerous liquor stores on the street. Hanrahan explained the situation, “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 spaces with messages of their own – stopping the violence, reaching out to the homeless, reconnecting to cultural and historical roots, encouraging positive, enriching activities.” The creation of the mural itself had been an enriching activity for local youth who had helped develop the mural’s theme and content.

Hanrahan had attempted to stop the whitewash, asking the storeowners to stop until she had time to determine her rights. They continued to paint, and Hanrahan sued. In court, the work was determined to be of “recognized stature,” and Hanrahan’s reputation was found to have been harmed by the actions of the storeowners. It was ruled that Hanrahan would restore the mural. She received $15,000 for harm done to her, $15,000 to restore the mural, and $18,000 to cover the costs of the trial and attorneys’ fees.