A woman found unconscious on a street in Lasalle on Sunday morning has died of her injuries. A man nearby has been arrested for drunk driving, but no homicide number yet.
Across town in Cartierville, a woman was stabbed in an apartment and a man has been arrested.
Trump lingers on our op-ed pages, the president wanting to try all the buttons and the EU’s Ursula von der Leyen getting an offer she can’t refuse. Chapleau once again illustrates Mark Carney’s plight against a bigger, meaner opponent. Godin links two threads, with a natural disaster coming for Carney.
Midweek, tributes were paid to Pierre Foglia by Chapleau and Godin.
Côté is still in summer reruns, with good ones about Canadian history, the housing crisis, and about getting our information from the internet.
The Gazette is doing a series on iconic bike rides with photos. They did the circuit Gilles‑Villeneuve late last month and have added a loop around the Lachine Canal and the river.
Radio-Canada has five suggestions of lesser‑known attractions in town, although the second one is in Mascouche, which I would say hardly counts.
Artist Simon Bachand created a mural at the corner of St‑Laurent Clark and Marie‑Anne in 2018 during the Mural festival. At that time it overlooked a parking lot. Now a three‑storey building has gone up on the lot, hiding most of the art piece. A judge has ruled that Bachand must be compensated for the loss of his work – but by the Mural festival, not the developer or owner of the property.
Attention artists: “We’ll pay you in exposure” now has a $$ value.
>A judge has ruled that Bachand must be compensated for the loss of his work
Seems it wasn’t really “for the loss of the work”, but because the artist was never informed by Mural that their contract with the building owner only promised 12 months of visibility, thus hiding information that may have made him decide never to paint it at all.
That might have made him decide.
The article says “Le contrat qui liait le propriétaire de l’immeuble et le festival Mural prévoyait simplement que la murale devait demeurer visible pendant 12 mois suivant sa réalisation. Ce contrat a été respecté. Les organisateurs avaient toutefois « l’obligation d’informer » M. Bachand de ces modalités avant qu’il ne réalise son œuvre.” It sounds to me like the festival has a case to appeal, unless their obligation to keep artists informed of the fate of their work after the stated year is spelled out in the contract.
If I were defending Mural, I’d want to add that if you paint an image that’s visible mostly over an empty lot, you’ve got to accept the possibility that someone’s going to come along and build on it eventually.
My reading is that Mural never divulged to the artist the details of the contract with the building owner. The obligation isn’t to keep artists informed *after*, but to inform them beforehand it may last only a year. But yeah, you’d think the artist would expect that anyway. And it’s certainly better for society at large to convert car parking into human housing than to save a $1500 piece of art.
BTW the mural is actually at Clark and Marie-Anne, not St-Laurent and Marie-Anne.
What I don’t understand is why the artist didn’t ask any questions about the expected longevity of the open view on the mural. It seems that the festival neglected to inform the artist that the guarantee was for only one year, but it boggles my mind that the artist didn’t think to ask about it. Mind you, the parking lot was very small and you wouldn’t necessarily think “someone’s going to put a building here” when you see it. But under the circumstances, why WOULDN’T you think that, and why would you be surprised if someone actually did so six years later?
You can see the mural and the parking lot here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxFyqJHgpWtJt5zJ7
Ironic that a five-stories tall art work was dealt with by the Small Claims Court.
https://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=37294B8989F0E5F8CED8F73D35A04C4B&page=4
In reaching the decision that Mural must pay the artist $2500 for the loss of his work, the judge writes:
“…, Mural avait cependant l’obligation d’informer M. Bachand des limitations dont elle avait convenu avec le propriétaire de l’immeuble : d’une part, que la protection de son œuvre était limitée à une période d’un an et, d’autre part, que le propriétaire s’était réservé le droit de développer son immeuble sans encourir de responsabilité. Il aurait alors incombé à M. Bachand de prendre lui-même la décision d’accepter de telles modalités, avec les risques qu’elles comportaient quant à la pérennité de sa murale, ou au contraire de refuser de réaliser son œuvre dans de telles conditions. En raison du silence de Mural, M. Bachand a été privé de cette possibilité. Il est maintenant placé devant un fait accompli.”
26. Il appert donc que Mural a manqué de transparence dans ses discussions avec M. Bachand. Elle ne pouvait présumer que celui-ci consentait à la limitation de ses droits moraux, tel qu’ils lui sont reconnus par la Loi sur le droit d’auteur. Elle devait obtenir son consentement explicite à ce sujet. Avec égards, il était peu respectueux pour Mural de retenir les services de M. Bachand pour réaliser une murale qui, pour celui-ci, s’inscrivait dans la continuité d’une œuvre globale s’étalant sur plusieurs décennies et développée à l’échelle internationale, sans l’aviser préalablement du risque de destruction de cette murale à court terme.
That still sounds vague as hell to me. Didn’t Bachand understand that nobody could guarantee the visibility of his mural beyond a year?
@Kate It was a contract to sell a piece of his work. Mural didn’t inform him of a key piece of information that it had in its possession that would have informed him that they had already entered into a contract with the building owner that protected the work for only a year.
It does seem strange that the artist didn’t think to inquire about the longer-term viability. Perhaps he’s just naïve, or perhaps he assumed that since the owner of the building also owned the parking lot (which I’m pretty sure is the case) that the building owner would OF COURSE not sell the parking lot to a developer because a building would obscure the artwork on the building they own. (This too is somewhat naïve.)
What it comes down to is this: it’s not the developer’s fault, nor the building owner’s fault; they have no legal obligation to the artist or the mural after that one year has expired. The fault lies with the Mural festival for (apparently) withholding the information that the clear view of the mural was only guaranteed for one year.
We had a discussion here a while ago about those flags at Sherbrooke and Atataken, and how they were originally meant to be near the water in Quebec City and the artist didn’t like they were moved. There is just a thing about who has rights to art. If the artist has rights of first refusal for sale or other rights like this, it will be less valuable, because “owners” can’t do what they want with it. Like if you sell your art to a museum, unless you’re really famous, you’re not going to be able to ban the museum from selling it to another one day, and if you do they’ll pay less for it. Privately held art is the same: if I buy a painting and know I can only sell it back to the artist, that’s a bigger risk for me.
I remember someone saying Mural Festival is only guaranteed a year, so I vaguely knew this, but it’s probably good for it to be spelled out in the contracts. But unless the contract said indefinite, I don’t know why anyone would assume it would be.
@Kate You wrote: “That still sounds vague as hell to me. Didn’t Bachand understand that nobody could guarantee the visibility of his mural beyond a year?”
No. As the judge points out Bachand was not party to the contract (or discussions) with the building owner. He signed a contract with Mural that stated that the copyright for his work stayed with him. No one else had the right to change it without his permission.
The judge explained the meaning of Bachand’s rights as the works creator:
17. Il ressort de ces dispositions que M. Bachand avait droit à l’intégrité de la murale qu’il a créée. Ce droit était incessible et n’a fait l’objet d’aucune renonciation de sa part, ni dans le cadre du contrat signé avec Mural, ni autrement. M. Bachand n’a pas autorisé Yuliv masquer son œuvre au moyen de l’érection d’un nouvel édifice. Par ailleurs, la clause 4 du contrat conclu entre Mural et M. Bachand préserve expressément la propriété intellectuelle de celui-ci sur la murale…
18. L’érection de l’édifice qui masque la plus grande partie de la murale et la rend définitivement inaccessible dans son intégralité représente assurément une déformation, une mutilation ou une modification de cette œuvre. Telle qu’elle a été conçue et réalisée par M. Bachand, cette œuvre est maintenant perdue. Son intégrité est définitivement compromise par la présence de la nouvelle construction. Le fait qu’une petite partie soit encore visible à distance ne donne plus qu’une idée médiocre de la composition initiale, de son apparence globale et du jeu des couleurs et des formes qui en constituaient la structure et l’essence. La signature caractéristique de M. Bachand, placée au bas de la murale, a irrémédiablement disparue.
21. Au moment où elle conclut son contrat avec M. Farasat, Mural ne peut ignorer que la Loi sur le droit d’auteur accordera notamment à M. Bachand, à titre de droits moraux, le droit à l’intégrité de son œuvre. Pourtant, les stipulations de ce contrat permettent clairement à M. Farasat de porter atteinte à l’intégrité de l’œuvre dès l’écoulement d’une année après sa réalisation…
22. En outre, même pendant cette période d’un an, Mural reconnaît le droit de M. Farasat de faire disparaître la murale…
23. …Ils pouvaient présumer que Mural, qui reconnaissait au propriétaire de l’édifice la latitude de détruire la murale, obtiendrait le consentement de l’auteur de l’œuvre à cette stipulation ou qu’elle prendrait à sa charge les conséquences d’une telle destruction envers l’artiste.
25. …Mural avait cependant l’obligation d’informer M. Bachand des limitations dont elle avait convenu avec le propriétaire de l’immeuble …
26. Il appert donc que Mural a manqué de transparence dans ses discussions avec M. Bachand. Elle ne pouvait présumer que celui-ci consentait à la limitation de ses droits moraux, tel qu’ils lui sont reconnus par la Loi sur le droit d’auteur. Elle devait obtenir son consentement explicite à ce sujet. Avec égards, il était peu respectueux pour Mural de retenir les services de M. Bachand pour réaliser une murale qui, pour celui-ci, s’inscrivait dans la continuité d’une œuvre globale s’étalant sur plusieurs décennies et développée à l’échelle internationale, sans l’aviser préalablement du risque de destruction de cette murale à court terme.
27. Mural n’a pas elle-même participé à la déformation, mutilation et modification de la murale de M. Bachand. Cependant, au moyen du contrat conclu avec Yuliv, c’est elle qui a mis en place les conditions requises pour que la murale puisse être altérée en toute légalité par le propriétaire de l’immeuble. Elle doit donc porter la responsabilité envers M. Bachand de la violation de ses droits moraux.
29. Rien ne permet de conclure que, du point de vue de M. Bachand, la murale réalisée sur l’immeuble de Yuliv constituait une œuvre qui, par essence, ne devait exister que pour une courte durée. Son existence intégrale a persister pendant six ans, soit de 2018 à 2024. Ce n’est pas rien, mais la disparition de cette œuvre ne résulte pas du processus naturel de dégradation découlant de l’action des éléments climatiques, qui l’aurait inéluctablement altérée avec le passage du temps. Le tribunal peut conclure de la preuve que l’existence de la murale s’est terminée de façon prématurée.
Makes me realize how complex this is, and why the festival fell down on its responsibility to preserve the piece. Thank you, H. John.
Kind of a puzzling ruling, no? Where I get tripped up is the notion that the creator of the work can reasonably expect it to remain on display indefinitely, and is entitled to compensation if it’s not. The judge has effectively argued that the mural’s being hidden is tantamount to its destruction; almost as if a museum, after acquiring a painting, were bound to display it forever. Obviously erecting a building that obscures the mural isn’t the same thing as stashing a painting in the archives when it’s time to mix up what’s being exhibited, but I struggle with the idea that the creator of street art can reasonably expect it to be displayed in perpetuity, and that they would be entitled to compensation if the ‘canvas’ evolves. On the one hand, I really admire the judge’s respect for art; on the other, this feels like a very impractical precedent – though I gather Mural can simply update its contracts with the artists it commissions.
(I’m also intrigued by the judge’s decision to equate making the artwork inaccessible with destroying it; I get the idea, but, presumably, the mural is still intact – just hidden.)
Hmm, not really complex. Items 25 and 26 in H. John’s post pretty much sums it up, at least from the legal perspective. The only mystery (for me at least) is why the artist didn’t question the longevity of the integrity of the piece (i.e., why he didn’t ask if the parking lot was intended to remain undeveloped).
Was Mural’s negligence simply a matter of not informing him of the one-year limit to the guarantee? Or did they imply to him (directly or indirectly) that the integrity was guaranteed for a longer time? (Based on the pieces of the judgement reproduced in this thread it sounds like it was a matter of “not informing,” not one of misleading. Which circles back to the question of why did the artist assume the view was safe from development…)
Joey, the issue is that Mural (the festival) KNEW the clear view of the mural was only guaranteed for one year but neglected to inform the artist of this before he agreed to do the work. The assumption is that if the artist knew the work were only “safe” for one year he might not have done the work.
The analogy of a museum tucking away a painting isn’t quite right because in that case the museum can always bring it out of storage whenever it wants, so the painting is not “destroyed” it’s just temporarily not visible.
“Destroyed” is a strange choice of words in a sense. You’re right that the mural is still there, but if you cannot see it then it is effectively destroyed. You could argue that it’s the VIEW of the mural in its context that constitutes the actual work, so in that sense it’s destroyed.
I feel like any mural artist should know that their art has a shelf life. If it’s not buildings being erected in front of the mural, it’s deterioration due to the elements, graffiti, or just a new mural covering it up. This should be clear to the artists but the festival should also make it clear to them in their contracts.
Bachand has been writing graffiti as STARE for decades and should know that street art can potentially last less than a day. Maybe h’s just been spoiled with having pieces that have lasted way longer than graffiti normally does such as this one that’s been there since 2002! There’s also this piece that’s been around since at least 2007 but got partially scrambled when the bricks were removed and then reused.
This is a very strange ruling.
29. Rien ne permet de conclure que, du point de vue de M. Bachand, la murale réalisée sur l’immeuble de Yuliv constituait une œuvre qui, par essence, ne devait exister que pour une courte durée.
Actually, it’s an outdoor mural subject to the natural elements, graffiti, etc. so it is perfectly reasonable to expect it to exist only for a short term. That alone should warrant an appeal. Neither the medium of murals, nor the Festival in itself lend themselves to works that last. Even if they sometimes last, urban murals are not ‘in essence’ perennial works. Mural has, at times, re-used walls after a number of years. Other similar events like Under Pressure Festival did too. In my mind, the 6 year duration the piece got was more than can be reasonably expected from an urban mural.
Also, the Festival is blamed for what it did not explicitely mention in the contract (its ‘silence’ as the judgment calls it). It is very strange to assign blame for something one did not do unless something else was actively implied. I fail to see how, given how many other murals done under similar arrangements have disappeared over time, there would have been an implication HERE that the festival would have secured the air rights around the piece. It is beyond the scope of a non-profit Festival’s means but also contrary to the very ephemeral nature of both urban murals in general and the Mural Festival in particular.
I think if this had been heard in a regular court with actual attorneys, this would have turned out very differently. This was heard in small claims court were people need to represent themselves without any lawyer (in theory).
Air quality is bad again this weekend. The CTV piece says “until Sunday” but the official warning page on the weather site is already saying “until Monday”.
Left my windows open Saturday night, came back from Fantasia and my apartment smelled smoky like bars used to smell.
I’m just feeling it in the eyes. I keep subliminally wondering why I have eyestrain and then remembering.
The haze last night (Saturday) coming into the city was unbelievable. And today the light has been very orange all day. Sunbeams on the floor that are normally while are orange like it’s one minute before sunset.
It was supposed to be a sunny day, but it was hazy the whole time and still is.
I wore a mask outside today (Sunday). Even so, I felt a tickle in my throat when I first went outside.
I was thinking to myself, it’s almost like the four seasons are now spring, winter, fall, and wildfire smoke.
I’ve seen people wearing blue surgical/procedure masks to protect themselves from smoke but as with airborne viruses that is not the job they’re designed for. I’m sad that they have a need for safety but haven’t been well-informed, or do not have the finances, to effectively meet it.
Reply