Artwork

Subscribe to Artwork via RSS
Murals in Oakland, California. Source: Oaktown Art.

In August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s rejection of claims by the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area that the City of Oakland’s program requiring developers to contribute 1% of the cost of a development project to public art violated the First Amendment.  In an unpublished opinion, the circuit court concluded that, although such a program implicated free speech concerns, it did not compel any particular speech.  The court noted that the program offered developers wide latitude to determine how they might incorporate artwork into their projects.  The court agreed that the program was related to the city’s interests in encouraging aesthetic interest in the community.
Continue Reading Federal Court Denies Challenge to Oakland, California’s “1% for Art” Program

The mural at the Lonsome Dove. Source: Bismarck Tribune.

This blog post was authored by Alexandra Haggarty, a summer clerk with Otten Johnson.  Alex is a rising 3L at the University of Colorado Law School.

A federal judge in North Dakota recently granted a temporary restraining order to enjoin the City of Mandan from enforcing a content-based ordinance regulating murals and signs.

The ordinance requires building owners to obtain a permit before displaying a sign or figurative wall mural.  A commission reviewing applications makes decisions based on guidelines and regulations, including those prohibiting murals that are commercial, have words as a dominant feature of the art, have political messages, or are on the front of the building.

The Lonesome Dove, a saloon that’s been a fixture on a main road for twenty-eight years, had until recently only decorated its exterior with beer ads.  Most recently, it had a Coors Light logo painted on the front wall.  Although the saloon never sought a permit for the logo, it was never cited for violation.  Seeking to reinvigorate its exterior, the saloon – not knowing it needed a permit – painted a 208 square-foot Western-themed “Lonesome Dove” mural on the front of the building in 2018. 
Continue Reading North Dakota City’s Mural Regulations Enjoined By Federal Court

In a case that we reported on last year, a federal district court in California granted summary judgment in favor of the City of San Diego in a case involving art murals.

Some of the facts of the case are reported in our prior post.  The San Diego sign code exempts from permitting “[p]ainted graphics that are murals, mosaics, or any type of graphic arts that are painted on a wall or fence and do not contain copy, advertising symbols, lettering, trademarks, or other references to the premises, products or services that are provided on the premises where the graphics are located or any other premises.”  Otherwise, all signs visible from the right of way are required to obtain a permit, and signs on city-controlled property must obtain a permit as well.  Messages on city-controlled property are limited to on-premises speech and “public interest” messages.  As we previously noted, the plaintiff, a mural company, was granted approval to place two wall murals in San Diego, but received a violation for the placement of a third mural.  The plaintiff believes that the annual Comic-Con event was given special treatment by the city, because certain signs posted around the city during the event were not issued citations.
Continue Reading San Diego’s Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Mural Case

Last week, a court in Missouri ruled that a village’s ordinance prohibiting commercial activity—including commercial photography—in a park was a constitutional restriction on speech.

The Village of Twin Oaks, Missouri had an ordinance that prohibited the use of a village park for commercial purposes.  The park was posted with signage that read:  “No commercial activity, including commercial photographers.”  The stated purpose for the village’s regulation was to ensure public safety and fair use of the park.  Josephine Havlak was a professional photographer who takes pictures for wedding and portrait purposes.  After Havlak filed suit claiming that the ordinance was a content based and unconstitutional restriction on speech, the village modified the ordinance to allow commercial photographers to use the park in exchange for a $100 permit fee.
Continue Reading Photography May Be Protected Speech, But Village’s Restriction on Park Photography Stands

https://www.flickr.com/photos/crazyoctopus/5475761852/in/photolist-9kSHe7-88fN9z-bvz44L-9kSHBL-9kPBRB-4FBDtb-9kPKw2-apvyaL-9kSGp1-9kSEy1-7Pkdmx-9kPBmv-9kSMPu-99BMDM-9kPHtR-9kSDQS-9kSRBu-9kSS4C-9kSE9J-9kSBE7-9kPLFz-9kPH2g-4ufEn7-jHoZTN-4ufEnh-gA2QQ-9kSPKG-nvGP9M-9kSR3J-9kPwbP-4ufEn9-4ubhn4-4ubhnR-ggFzW4-9kSQ85-asHB4P-4ubhnk-4ufEn3-4ubhmV-9kPzqp-9kPCSD-4nFHu-9kPNL8-9kPwEr-9kSCTb-gA2Ta-9kPGwp-7PpdDh-gzYZC-9kPE8R

Considering the issue for the first time, the Eleventh Circuit joined the Ninth in holding that the act of tattooing is sheltered by the First Amendment.
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit: Tattooing is Protected Speech; Jimmy Buffet Lyrics Do Not Establish a Significant Government Interest