Detroit Artist Suing Building Owner to Protect Mural She Created, Should the Mural be Protected? [Poll]
Princeton Enterprises is considering redeveloping the property on which Craig created The Illuminated Mural in 2009.
The lawsuit says, "Princeton Enterprises has threatened to destroy or mutilate the mural by, for example, punching windows across the painted façade."
Freep.com reports that Craig had a contract with the building owners when she created the work that said that the mural would remain for at least ten years, but ownership has changed since then.
Craig says she's not after money. The lawsuit seems to put a value on the work as it says, "Princeton has asked Craig to accept little more than a token sum in exchange for her legal rights to an artwork that took more than a year to conceptualize and create, and that continues to be the most important part of her growing oeuvre."
Craig's lawsuit also talks about The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 which she says protects her mural.
If Craig had a contract with the owner of the building that said the mural is protected for ten years, that contract should carry over with the building to any and all new owners for the duration of the contract.
If the sellers of the building didn't disclose the existence of the contract when they were selling it, that could put them at fault and may give the current owners more options on how to move forward.
If there were no such contract or the contract was unclear on what would happen in the case of a change of ownership, the current owners should be free to do with the building as they see fit.