Copyright Roundup

JOHN WIERZBICKI
Law Offices of John R. Wierzbicki

WELCOME TO THE LATEST EDITION of the Copyright Roundup, in which we encapsulate developments in copyright through to January, 2025. You are also invited to attend the meetings of the Copyright IG, which occur on the first Wednesday of each month, and at which these and other topics affecting copyright practice are discussed. To join the call, please contact the IG’s Chair, Marcus Peterson (marcus.peterson@oracle.com) or the Vice Chairs, Angus Mac-Donald (Angus.MacDonald@ucop.edu) or me, John Wierzbicki (jwierzbickilaw@gmail.com).

MURAL REMOVAL PLAN IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VARA ACTION

In Shook v. Atallah Grp. US Inc., ___ F.Supp.3d ___ (CDCA 2024) (2024 WL 4867236), a street artist painted a mural on a building in Los Angeles. The owner of the building commissioned an advertisement that was painted over the mural. The artist brought a claim for violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act (17 U.S.C. § 106A). The owner moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). Held, the artist failed to sufficiently plead facts that showed: (1) that the mural was removable and (2) that he had consent from the owner to install the mural.