United States: Painting Your Way To A Lifetime Tenancy Through The Visual Artists Rights Act

Last Updated: December 27 2017
Article by William L. Charron and Jason S. Mencher

Recently, in the case of Cohen v. G&M Realty L.P., a New York fed­eral jury issued its "advisory" verdict that a real estate developer violated the U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 when he whitewashed and later tore down a building complex in Long Island City to make way for a condominium redevelopment.

This application of VARA—which treats someone else's real property as an artist's inviolable canvas— may violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause to the U.S. Constitution.

VARA grants certain "moral rights" to the authors of works of visual art, including in particular the right "to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature" during the artist's lifetime. The complex had hosted graffiti art that had become a popular sensation since 1993: known as 5Pointz, the 200,000 square foot space had been known as a graffiti mecca.

On behalf of more than 20 graffiti artists, the curator of 5Pointz sued the developer and property owner, Ger­ald Wolkoff, for damages, asserting that the art had taken on a "recognized stature" that should not have been destroyed (the complex was demolished in 2014). The jury agreed, although Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York will issue the final ruling in the case.

The trial in Cohen focused on the "stature" of the graffiti art at 5Pointz, but a more fundamental issue was not addressed: whether a remedy under VARA in this situation would be an unconstitutional "taking" under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If the jury's verdict is upheld, then that will effectively mean that the graffiti art had been entitled to a lifetime tenancy that had been violated. Put another way, Cohen may stand for a rule that VARA bars property owners from exercising their traditional rights and disposing of their property when the property is itself a "canvas" for a work of visual art with "recognized stature." This would appear to be a serious reshaping of landowner rights.

The Moral Rights Purpose Behind VARA

Unlike certain countries in Europe, the United States does not generally recognize claims for violations of an artist's moral rights, meaning the right of an artist to protect the integrity of a work according to the artist's own sensibilities. VARA is an exception under U.S. law.

VARA, an amendment to the U.S. Copyright Act, is designed to recognize certain "moral rights" in works of visual artistic expression. In particular, under VARA, "the author of a work of visual art...shall have the right...to prevent any destruction of a work of recog­nized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right." This right endures "for a term consisting of the life of the author" unless the author (i.e., the artist) has expressly waived it earlier in a signed writing.

The facts in Cohen reflect that Wolkoff had permitted graffiti artists to use the walls of his property to create a forum for street art. 5Pointz eventually became a sort of open-air museum to locals and tourists alike.

Wolkoff had apparently indicated to the artists that he would likely one day tear down the complex, but there were no signed writings between the artists and him reflecting a waiver of any potential VARA rights. It may be that the parties did not consider the issue at all-which would be entirely understandable in the case of Wolkoff, who may not have perceived a danger that by allowing his building complex walls to be used as a forum for street art, he was effectively granting the art itself "moral" tenancy rights in the complex through the lifetimes of the various artists. This would appear to present constitutional problems under the Takings Clause to the U.S. Constitution.

Per Se Takings Under the Takings Clause

The Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution says that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." There are two forms of takings that appear relevant to Cohen.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that certain governmental actions constituting physical occupations of private property may be per se takings that require just compensation to the affected property owners. This rule was established in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, which addressed a municipal statute requiring apartment building owners to allow small portions of their properties to be occupied by cable television equipment.

Reversing New York's Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court found that the cable equipment statute violated the Takings Clause as a per se taking because it imposed a "permanent physical occupation" on the property and not merely a "temporary invasion" of the property owner's rights.

The distinction, according to Loretto, is whether the government action permanently, physically occupies the property or occurs "outside the owner's property [and] causes consequential damages within" the property. The statute implicated in Loretto imposed "permanent" physical occupation because the property owner was required to suffer the cable equipment directly on its property for "[s]o long as the property remains residential and a CATV company wishes to retain the installation, ...." In particular, the court said:

Property rights in a physical thing have been described as the rights "to possess, use and dispose of it."...To the extent that the government permanently occupies physical property, it effectively destroys each of these rights. First, the owner has no right to possess the occupied space himself, and also has no power to exclude the occupier from possession and use of the space. The power to exclude has traditionally been considered one of the most treasured strands in an owner's bundle of property rights... 

Second, the permanent physical occupation of property forever denies the owner any power to control the use of the property; he not only cannot exclude others, but can make no nonpossessory use of the property....

Finally, even though the owner may retain the bare legal right to dispose of the occupied space by transfer or sale, the permanent occupation of that space by a stranger will ordinarily empty the right of any value, since the purchaser will also be unable to make any use of the property.

It may be argued that VARA imposes permanent physical occupations in cases like Cohen. Although Wolkoff had agreed to allow graffiti artists to make use of his property for what Wolkoff understood to be a circumscribed period of time, VARA would transform that occupation to be permanent through the lifetimes of the artists (if the art is deemed to be of "recognized stature").

Regardless of Wolkoff's intentions, VARA may have created a durable moral rights easement on his property, thereby denying him his traditional property rights.

Regulatory Takings Under The Takings Clause

The Supreme Court has also recognized that certain governmental actions may constitute "regulatory takings." This rule was established in the apposite decision of Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City, which addressed New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law and the requirement that owners of designated landmarks must keep their building exteriors "in good repair" and must obtain Landmarks Preservation Commission approvals to make exterior alterations.

In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the New York Court of Appeals in holding that the Preservation Law did not violate the Takings Clause. The court announced what amount to "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries" into whether a government's restriction on property use constitutes a regulatory taking. Of substantial importance are the:

economic impact of the regulation on the [property owner] and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations....So, too, is the character of the governmental action. A "taking" may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by government,...than when interference arises from some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.

Looking primarily to the character of the regulation, which was to preserve historic landmarks for the general, public welfare, Penn Central found that the Preservation Law did not constitute a regulatory taking.

The court rejected as "simply untenable" the owners' argument that their investment-backed expectations were defeated because they could not freely develop air rights in the future; the court instead found that "the law does not interfere with what must be regarded as [the owner's] primary expectation concerning the use of the parcel" and, thus, the owner's "reasonable return" on its investment. The court also found it significant that the property owners could obtain judicial review of landmark designation decisions under the Preservation Law, thereby protecting against "arbitrary" and "capricious" determinations.

The Preservation Law in Penn Central is analogous to VARA, but there are important distinctions. First, the character of VARA is primarily geared towards protecting the moral rights of individual artists, not necessarily towards saving "history" and improving the general, public welfare (although that is a derivative benefit of protecting art and fostering future forms of artistic expression).

In addition, in cases like Cohen, the building owners should more likely be viewed as losing their "reasonable returns" on investment when they must essentially forfeit their properties to become de facto painting canvasses for others. (Although query whether building walls may be removed and kept intact, at someone's expense, to preserve the art.)

Further, whether art is of a "recognized stature" seems to be more prone to arbitrary and capricious decision-making-or at least to more unsettled decisions based upon community standards of particular juries. Also note that VARA does permit property owners to expressly contract in writing with artists to waive their "lifetime" moral rights.


The situation presented in Cohen may not be a typical VARA case, but it is an important one. VARA's goal of promoting artistic expression is commendable, but it is not at all clear that Congress intended to interfere with the rights of property owners like Wolkoff.

The Takings Clause offers an avenue for property owners like Wolkoff to explore and potentially advocate in the future. The irony of the jury's advisory decision in Cohen is that it may be Wolkoff who deserves "just compensation" under the Takings Clause to reimburse any damages awarded to the graffiti artists.

To view a PDF of the full article, please click here. 

Originally published in Bloomberg Law

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions