by Nicole Pope
The creative rights of musicians, writers, and artists with tangible work are enforced by our laws and court systems every day by means of copyright. When it comes comes to legal agreements between mural creators and building owners though, most in the first group find themselves without creative control or written policies to aid in the protection of their work. Over the summer, many inspiring murals in the downtown Los Angeles area were painted over due to disputes with the city over the restoration of historical buildings to their original appearance. This project was spurred with the bribe of additional tax dollars for owners who agreed to paint over existing murals on their property.
Band members and fans of Foster the People felt the effects of this reward son after the completion of their ‘Supermodel’ mural. Because of loopholes in the VARA (Visual Artists Rights Act) and the California Art Preservation Act, owners of the building at 539 Los Angeles Street were able to paint over the mural without violating any legal contracts, but not without public disapproval. VARA states: “ Preservation legislation recognizes society’s interest in preserving its architectural treasures, despite private ownership. Similarly, moral rights legislation recognizes that art ownership is not an absolute property right,” meaning that an artist still is allowed to have say over their artwork even if it is displayed on or in private property, and that the owner of said institute or artwork must still comply with the interests of the artist. What this act doesn’t protect are pieces of art known as “works for hire.” “Works for hire” are pieces created by more than one artist for one company or group, with the title of the artist going to the group who organized the project and not the crew who physically worked on it. In the case of the Supermodel mural, because the artists Young & Sick were contacted by the band to design the mural and a crew was hired to paint it, the mural is considered a “work for hire”. This and the fact that the mural was accused to be an advertisement for the band’s album terminated its VARA rights. In response, the band’s frontman Mark Foster told reporters:
“There’s a lot of people who live down here, who walk past or
ride the bus to work past that wall every day. They have no
idea who we are, but they’re going to be able to see a piece
of art that’s making their neighborhood more beautiful, even
if they never listen to the band… It happens to be the same art
we’re putting on our record but for me it was always something
separate from the album itself… This was a chance to make
something that’s going to stand independent of the music that we
make.”
Sounds like a greedy, self-absorbed musician only interested in making money, am I right? Over 12,000 fans of the band signed a petition against the mural’s removal and many more voiced their opinions on social media. Not one of them believed it was an advertisement or a nuisance to the community. The mural had the opposite effect actually. Just on my personal account, I can say that standing up for the rights of this mural and watching others visit a tangible representation of the music and band that means the world to me has sparked countless
