GRIDPRt) EXAMPLE DESIGN & PANEL
P()SAL # 1
@
corraxnarrrlt
strrocrt Ptoxcr
n 6Jd-. ., t r- o.. p.,.1
i.r DrdE p-r o,. l-9c
PROJECT DETAITS
COLLABORATIVE OCEAN MUNAT
MADE FROM RECYCLEO MAIERIALS
Stu& nt! will worl togadrar lo crlato
ona llr!?- scaL ocarn rflrrrl uiing
rac!rct d mrtarisla. Eaah 3tudcnl
contrlbnG3 to tho ertvyo.l by do3tFing
nd c.cetinO oiE plnal. Whgn rU plnels
ara co.nungd, thay lorm a vibrant,
unifu ocaan acana that cdab.. Lg
marinr lifa and p.ornotaa aNironmntrl
PANEL SIUE:
2- r 12- (rpp.or )
TSTAI. PA,.EIS:
l2E p.rrG l?trmpa. t
lq.rt)
v.l
FrNtsHto srzE ( apPRor.)
1 i
E
8 EN EFIT S
a P riEls
lrLt
G'Pf,OI
a tr)
I
I
6 GO
ia^Ttnnts: n q/d.d pLib
botl,G c.pa. lir., 6.rir! trt rop..
crtito. rd, d..rE utj|.L, lqrld
b.-h it .ni, d oth,.. r.c1'tLd
MOUTfiING: nywbod p.rd!
rno{niad aecuely lo crl..ix v.'ll
wth Y,!.ih.r. ro!i!r..t h..drt.!
DUaAULrV: S.rLd vrith W
rd *..tlE . r€ra.uil al.rco.t
ld hng" t o outdoo, p.oliclion
1 RtcYctto I srrstattaltf
A,lwt t h..a lro rGFLd
ttx-. lr c.a.cLd t 6
b.r.,t ct-rr. rd &.. rrru
A\:
7 octlr @rtEnv l(,x
tih.rm.6d,
n-i.. lr. rld dr inF.r.E
ol r..riig or., r oc.G ch.n
cor,rutarY llttlgl
t *'5c- qr!a. !os. Itd
b.6 p.id. h ar.orfr-rv
t,rq{r! d!a.r(.,-!nty
16 P NELS r{rot (APPiOX. I aT)
A!.rdb rirto. tr-ltal ruit 6rtcrd.d ntart
E E ry. tud.. t otd*t
anl: rta Brttlc . pE a,iC
C{..b. . L.iile, pdh. lf-r
oETATL EXAMPLES ( CLOSE UPS)
MATTRIAI.S € XAMPI. IS t
IT I
4aairl. a!-, t
rI
I
T
llII
Afc,
@
II
4 EE
Y-' .- r
T
PROJECT OVERVTEW l
I
1 WAIL MOCKUP ( EXAMPLE}
1 7v
Il-t
E#-S
@
6 Gc)
rite
i of
T
t
rJ fr -\
JJ3 YUo=C=xg, GJa.=
U74;=
E
z.
sE
u.
t
OE EX
ur
9 F:<
t
ul
3 G:
f
a
l:
Jza IJ PJ Eo€ r
r.
r
3 q.uJaro? X9E E
r!
u
e
I
t
I
Tl
s
N
ff
i
r
r
r
E
E
r
ETE
Is
ff
i
EETE
I
Hrr
I' ft
1 I
L_
I
1 r
o
t
iI
a
N
II
I
I
As
Et Er
i
il
i
r
ia
r
i
va
C\
csi
E
E
t'
V,
tr
l
l
aE
2 C)
h BEE
a
Y
C
J
a
a
t
I
tIi
rr
I
r
sGT rr
rt
t
rl IIj
i
I
3dObc\sc- l
iI
l1 tl
I
I
I
t
l
E
Y
rl
I
fl
I
I
t4
D
I
dAL ul,ilt*
ACtt--
VISUAL ARTISTS RIGHTS ACT ond verbol presentotion to
6/2/26 City CounciI meeting
Lost week I observed Redondo Beoch Whoting Wott. lt's
condition is horribty negtected. Considering the probtems between AES ond City of RB, ond considering the Seotob murots were pointed over; I become worried obout the some hoppening.
I discovered thot pubtic ort is protected through the Visuot Artists Rights Act of 1990. ln 1991, Wytond creoted our own Whoting Wot[, one of his100 thot he ptonned to complete throughout the world thot depicted onimots listed on the IUCN Red List of Threotened Species. With or without o controct between WyLond ond the City, this ort is protected. lt connot be pointed over or destroyed in ony woy without the consent of the ortist.
Currentty, in Doltos, TX, Wytond's B2nd Whoting Wo[[ wos pointed over to disptoy on od for the FIFA Wortd Cup, without Wytond's permission,'they tied with o copitol L", obout obtoining, he verified. He went on to soy thot, "They picked the wrong ortist. I con tettyou thot. I om going to go ofter them ond go ofter them hord. I om going to osk the community of Dottos to stoy with me.
We ore going to protect the other ort in Dottos.
Then, 'lf they con get owoy with it, then ottthe pubtic ort in Dottos ond ottthe pubtic ort in Americo is ot risk".
ln the post, other ortists hove sued ond won for $1.1tr/ ond $6.7M.
This info is hightighted in the ottoched document for the Visuol Artists Rights Act thot I hove given to you.
Tonight, two points: "*-
Thot this is something for which we should be owore, ond moke , sure nothing hoppens to the wott. l-ti ,-,) t n/"- Q,iW r'.ru)';- ,r',1 Perhops Wytond shoutd be contocted to obtoin on estimote for this wotl comptetety . The buiLdi ng coutd be porking tot. 1t,\:- i <oca-t-;{ h A-A\
tE-r*3 .._-
ll,.4--.-.>{ +
a K €
t S-€u7c-JC
eU* ffit- 1-lf' l
I tJv
k
9"'-t t * re;l-:
restoring
C
WrrrnnorA$
25 years of rhe ftc. .nryclopcdia
Visual Artists Rights Act
The Visual Artists Rights Act of r99o (VARA; PUh L ror-65o ( https://uslaw.link/citation/u s-law/public/tor/65o) title VI, rZ U.S.C. g ro64, ( https:// www. law.comell. edu/uscode llextlrZlro6 A)), is a United States law granting certain rights to artists.
VARA was the first federal copyright legislation to grant protection lo moral nghts. Under VARA, works of art that meet certain requirements afford their authors additional rights in the works, regardless of any subsequent physical ownership of the work itself, or regardless of who holds the copyright to the work. For instance, a painter may insist on proper attribution of their painting, and in some instances may sue the owner of the physical painting for destroying the painting even if the owner of the painting lawfrrlly owned it.tll
Although federal law had not acknowledged moral rights before this act, some state legislatures and judicial decisions created limited moral-rights protection. The Berne Convention required the protection of these rights by signatory states, and it was in response that the U.S. Congress passed theVARA.
Exclusive rights under VARA
VARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following 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 ot 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
Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing. To date, recognized stature" has managed to elude a precise definition. VARA allows authors to waive their rights, something generally not permitted in France and many European countries whose laws were the originators of the moral rights of artists concept.[zJ In most instances, the rights granted under VARA persist for the life of the author (or the last surviving author, for creators ofjoint works).
Covered works
VARA provides its protection only to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, still photographic images produced for exhibition only, and existing in single copies or in limited editions of zoo or fewer copies, signed and numbered by the artist. The requirements for protection do not implicate aesthetic taste or value.
Application and effect
VARA's application is limited to visual works that fall within a narrowly defined category.
However, for works that do fall within the category of protected works, VARA imposes substantial restrictions on any modification or removal of those works. Purchasers of the works must obtain written waivers from the author if they wish to exercise any of the exclusive rights under VARA.
This has particularly been an issue for those that commission public sculptures. Absent a waiver, artists could effectively veto decisions to remove their structures from their benefactor' s 1and. In a zoo6 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 VARA 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.'[g] However, one artist has claimed " The moment that the sculpture is removed, it will be destroyed, because it cannot be what it is any.rvhere . 1..."[+J
Examples of works
Tilted Arc, a well-known artwork by Richard Serra, was r moved lrom public display prior to the enactment of VARA
Kent Twitchell' s Ed Ruscha mural was p ed over wi ut his approval. Twitchell agreed to the largest settlement ever under VAR
6s1s66361s. [ sJ{6J
or $ 1.1 mill against the U.s. government and 12
On February 12, 2018, a federal judge RA in awa tng $ 6 7 million 21 graffiti artists at the 5 Pointz open- air gratliti museum whose works w destroyed e developer who owned the property on which the gratfiti had been painted. down to 1s5u;; 6 6e66ss. [7][8][el
ng owner tore the building
ln 2018, Finnish/ American artrst Christian Narkiewicz- Laine filed the largest VARA lawsuit rn U.S. history stemming from the destruction of the artist's rented space in Galena, lllinois where he alleged over 4,000 works of art were destroyed and mutilated, claiming a value of $11.8 million. During the VARA trial in Bockford, lllinois, the artist' s "recognized stature" under the statute was at issue. The defendants argued that he lacked sufficient stature to gain protection, citing his background as a Communist, a member of SDS during the 1970s, his numerous arrests during the Civil Rights Movement, and burning of an American flag during an antiVietnam War protest His art and writings were also attacked lor being provocative and " antiAmerican," and therefore not of stature. His credibility as a witness was also questioned, based on his prior felony conviction for lying to the FBI during an art fraud investigation. Although the deiendants were found liable for trespass, conversion, and negligence, the jury awarded the artist $ 120,000 for only lour undisclosed, unnamed works ol art from over 4,000 The federal judge tound that the iury's
VARA award was properly included within the jury's other damages, thus reducing the amount of the total judgment. ln 2019, the case was appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and was affirmed. The artist appealed the VARA case to the U.S. Supreme Court and was decllned a hearing [ 10][11] See also
Carter v. Helmsley- Spear lnc.
External links
Text of Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 ( https://www.law.cornell. edu/uscode/ texti lTl106A) Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual Artworks ( https.//www.copyright. gov/reports/ exsum.html). U.S.
Copyright Office Retrieved 2005-07-01
RayMing Chang, Revisiting the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990: A Follow-up Survey About Awareness and Waiver, 13 TEX. INTELL PROP L.J. 129 (2005) ( https.// papers. ssrn. com/ sol3/ papers. cfm? abstract id=90215. 1): This article analyzes the history ol VARA and presents empirical data about the Visual Artists Rights Act o, 1990 ( VARA) from an exhaustive survey that the author conducted in 2003.
RARIN - Rights and Reproductions lnlormation Network for Museum Professionals ( http://ww w. rarin. org)
References
1 . Grant, Daniel ( 31 August 2010). " When Creator and Owner Clash" ( https://www.wsj.com/article s/S B 1 000 1 424 0527 487 034 4700457il497935 1 8 1 69052) Wall Street Jo urnal. 2 Robert J. Sherman Note: THE VISUAL AFITISTS BIGHTS ACT OF 1990: AMERICAN ARTISTS BURNED AGAIN. 17 Ca.dozo L. Rev.373 (1995)
3. See Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, lnc., 459 F.3d 128 (1st Circuit 2006)
4. Palo Alto Wants to Tear Down a Giant Computer- Egg Sculpture-But the Artist Says lt Molates Her Rights, February 5, 2018, https://news.artnet.com/art-world/palo-alto-public-artvara- 1 215491
5. Ly, Laura. " Judge awards $ 6.7 million to graffiti artists whose work was destroyed to build condos" ( https:/, vww. cnn.com/ 2018/ 02/13/us/5pointz- graffiti- artists- awardtrnd/ index. html).
CNN Retrieved 201 8-02-'1 4.
6. "What Right Do Muralists Have To The Buildings They Paint On?" ( https:// www. nprorg/ 2015/ 0 61271417204222what- right- do-muralists- have- to-the-buildings- they- paint- on). NPR.org.
Retrieved 2018- 02-14.
7 Feuer, Alan ( 2018- 02-12) " Graffiti Artists Awarded $ 6.7 Million for Destroyed sPointz Murals" https:// www. nytimes. com/ 2018l12l1zlnyregion/ spointz- graftiti- judgment. html). The New York Tirnes. ISSN 0362- 4331 ( https:// search. worldcat. org/issn/0362- 4331). Retrieved 2018- 02-13.
8. Feuer, Alan ( 2017- 11-07) " Brooklyn Jury Finds sPointz Developer lllegally Destroyed Graffiti" https://www.nytimes.comi2017l11l07lnyqionlspointz- graftiti-juryhtml) TheNewYorkTimes ISSN 0362-4331 ( https:// search. worldcat. org/ issn/ 0362- 4331). Retrieved 2018- 02-14.
9. " Judge Rules Developer Must Pay SPointz Graffiti Artists $ 6.7M" ( https://hyperallergic coml426 658/judge-rules-developer- must-pay-5pointz-graff iti-artists- 6-7mf Hyperallergic. 2018-02-12.
Retrieved 2018- 02-13.
10. "Statutory Damages Under VARA PIus Actual Damages for the Same Works Constitutes lmproper Double Recovery: Seventh Circuit" ( https://web.archive.org/web1202110131457121h11 ps://today. westlaw com/Documenti l8f3552agaca811 e9adfea82903531a62A/ iew/FullText. html?t ransitronType= Derault&contextData=( sc.Default)& firstPage= ltue). Westlaw loday. Thomson Reuters. Archived from the original ( https:/ oday.westlaw. com/Document/ l8f3552agaca81. l e9a drea82903531a62Mew/ FullTe) d.htmltransitionType= Default& contextData=( sc.Default)& firstPa ge=true) on 13 October 2021 Retrieved 7 December 2020.
11 "Christian Narkiewicz- Laine v Kevin Doyle, 18-2535 ( 7th Cir. 2019)" ( https.//www.courtlistene r.com/ opinion/ 4641437/ christian- narkiewicz- laine- v-kevin- doyle}. Couft Listener. Free Law Project. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.orgiwlindex.php?title=Visual Artists Rights_ Act& oldid= 1337767679"