Up the Wall With the Visual Artists Rights Act

In light of the recent case between muralist, Samuel Kerson, and Vermont Law School, along with several other examples, consideration of the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) should be at the forefront of mural artists, and their attorneys. One glaring aspect of murals that differs from other mediums of visual art, protected by VARA, is their lack of mobility. VARA allows artists to stop their art from being destructed or modified. Perhaps if VARA existed in 1932, Diego Rivera’s “Man at the Crossroads” would still be displayed at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in New York City. John Rockefeller Jr. had Rivera’s mural destroyed shortly after it was completed because it prominently featured Vladimir Lenin. Another way that murals, along with other forms of public art such as statues, differ from other mediums is their accessibility. With the frequent intention to benefit the public, murals are often visible to anyone walking by, but also subject to the weather.

In Kerson v. Vermont Law School, Vermont Law School decided to cover a mural, painted by the plaintiff in 1993, that depicts enslaved people. Certain members of the student community, who found the artist’s depiction of the enslaved people offensive, successfully petitioned for the administration to take action; the school’s “solution” was to temporarily cover the mural with a tarpaulin and then to permanently cover it with acoustic panels. Since the mural was painted on sheetrock, the mural cannot be removed without damaging or destroying the art. The artist claims that the concealment of the work constitutes a modification, violating his VARA rights. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the school from covering his mural. The plaintiff then appealed, but the appeals court’s decision has not yet been released.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.