On June 1, 2026, Robert Wyland, a Florida-based environmental artist, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against building owner Slate Asset Management, 3PZ Property Company, LLC and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and its affiliates.[1] Wyland alleges that, in May 2026, roughly one month before Dallas was set to host nine FIFA World Cup matches, work crews painted over most of his eight-story whale mural to make way for new, World Cup-themed artwork. According to Wyland, defendants acted without notice or consent, in violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA); he seeks at least $25 million in damages and has demanded a jury trial. The dispute raises an interesting question under VARA: how far do an artist’s statutory rights extend when long-standing public art stands in the way of event-driven redevelopment or promotional use?
The work at issue is Wyland’s Ocean Life, also known as Whaling Wall 82, an approximately 17,000-square-foot mural formerly spanning two exterior walls of a building in downtown Dallas, Texas. Wyland completed Ocean Life in 1999 as part of a series intended to raise awareness in land-locked cities about ocean pollution. The mural depicts life-sized humpback whales, dolphins and other marine life. Wyland alleges that the mural was both an iconic fixture in downtown Dallas and central to his artistic mission.
According to local reporting, after 2010, large advertising posters covered substantial portions of Wyland’s mural at various points before those ads were removed and the work reemerged in April 2020.[2]
The Complaint alleges that, in the weeks leading up to the World Cup, defendants painted over and destroyed the mural, rather than merely covering it. Emphasizing the wall’s size, visibility and commercial value, Wyland alleges that the building’s owners and managers authorized FIFA to paint over and destroy the mural.[3] He further alleges that FIFA authorized, promoted and benefited from the mural’s destruction and replacement, pointing to a statement by FIFA, through the North Texas FWC Organizing Committee, that the mural was being replaced with artwork that would “celebrate and build excitement for the upcoming World Cup 2026.”[4] Wyland disputes that characterization, alleging instead that the defendants “hastily and irrevocably destroyed a civic landmark” in their “zeal to capitalize on international attention” on Dallas during the World Cup.[5]
These allegations form the basis for Wyland’s VARA claim. As previously covered on this blog, VARA grants living creators of qualifying “works of visual art”[6] certain non-transferable “moral rights.”[7] Those rights include, subject to statutory limitations, the right “to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of [his or her work] which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation,”[8] and, where the work has attained “recognized stature,” the right to prevent its “intentional or grossly negligent destruction.”[9] These rights may be waived only in a signed written agreement that expressly so provides.[10]
Wyland alleges that the defendants, acting individually or in concert, intentionally caused his mural to be destroyed by directing or authorizing work crews to paint over it, “obliterating substantially all of the original artwork.”[11] He further alleges that the destruction of Ocean Life harms his reputation by “eliminating a prominent, publicly visible work that exemplified his artistic vision and commitment to ocean conservation.”[12] The Complaint also asserts that Ocean Life qualifies as a work of “recognized stature,” citing its “recogni[tion] by art experts, critics, and the public as an important work of art with significant cultural and artistic value,”[13] and alleges that defendants’ conduct was willful and deliberate in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(B). Finally, Wyland claims that defendants never obtained a written waiver of his VARA rights.
There is precedent for applying VARA to murals painted on buildings. In the well-known 5Pointz litigation, covered on this blog, Judge Frederic Block of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York awarded $6.75 million in statutory damages to artists whose 45 aerosol works—painted with the developer’s consent on the exterior of vacant buildings at the 5Pointz complex—were destroyed.[14] The court found the works to be of “recognized stature” and that the developer’s unjustified and premature whitewashing constituted “willful” destruction under VARA.[15] The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there is “nothing in VARA that excludes temporary artwork from attaining recognized stature.”[16] The Supreme Court denied certiorari,[17] leaving the Second Circuit’s decision in place.
As courts have recognized, disputes of this kind can be avoided through a written waiver of the artist’s VARA rights at the outset.[18] VARA permits an artist to waive those rights in a signed written agreement,[19] which can provide clarity to both property owners and artists regarding their respective rights and obligations concerning the alteration, removal or destruction of the work. Murals painted directly onto buildings, however, present additional practical and legal challenges.[20] Where the artwork cannot be removed without being destroyed, a property owner’s ability to repurpose the wall may be constrained by the artist’s statutory rights. Absent a waiver, removing or destroying the work may expose the property owner to liability under VARA.
Here, Wyland alleges that Ocean Life was painted over to make way for World Cup–related artwork on a large, highly visible downtown wall likely to draw increased attention from visitors and fans during the matches. Highly visible urban surfaces can be valuable canvases for large-scale outdoor advertising and promotional displays, particularly in connection with major events. Property owners may therefore face substantial commercial incentives to provide a blank canvas for event-related content, even where existing artwork has been in place for decades and no VARA waiver has been secured.
As this case illustrates, repurposing a building exterior in this manner may expose property owners to VARA liability where an artist contends that a protected work has been destroyed without consent. With Los Angeles set to host the 2028 Olympics, similar disputes may arise if prominent walls or building exteriors bearing artwork are repurposed in advance of the Games without first securing a VARA waiver. Property owners should address VARA issues with artists when artwork is commissioned or, for preexisting works, at the outset of redevelopment planning. It remains to be seen how the defendants will respond to Wyland’s claims. We will continue to monitor the case as it progresses in the Northern District of Texas.
[1] See Complaint, Wyland v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) et al., No. 3:26-cv-01794. (N.D. Tex. June 1, 2026) (Dkt. No. 1) (hereinafter “Complaint”).
[2] Michael Granberry, Massive downtown whale mural resurfaces from beneath ads that covered it for years, Dallas Morning News (Apr. 23, 2020), https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/visual-arts/2020/04/23/massive-downtown-mural-resurfaces-from-beneath-ads-that-covered-it-for-years/.
[3] Complaint ¶ 29.
[4] Complaint ¶ 27, citing Sara Sanchez, Artist of Dallas’ iconic whale mural reacts as work is painted over for FIFA art, 5NBCDFW (May 18, 2026), https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/iconic-whale-wall-mural-painted-over/4024257/.
[5] Complaint ¶ 32.
[6] A “work of visual art” under VARA is narrowly defined to include paintings, drawings, prints or sculptures, existing in a single copy or in a limited edition of 200 or fewer signed, numbered copies. 17 U.S.C. § 101.
[7] 17 U.S.C. §§ 106A, 113(d).
[8] 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(A).
[9] 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(B).
[10] 17 U.S.C. § 106A(e)(1).
[11] Complaint ¶ 39.
[12] Complaint ¶ 40.
[13] Complaint ¶ 38.
[14] Cohen v. G&M Realty L.P., 320 F. Supp. 3d 421 (E.D.N.Y. 2018).
[15] Id. at 427.
[16] Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., 950 F.3d 155, 167 (2d Cir. 2020).
[17] G&M Realty L.P. v. Castillo, 141 S. Ct. 363 (Mem.) (2020).
[18] As Judge Block pointed out in a footnote to his February 2018 5Pointz decision. See Cohen, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 447.
[19] 17 U.S.C. § 113(d).
[20] See Kerson v. Vermont Law School, Inc., 79 F.4th 257 (2d Cir. 2023) (recognizing a property owner’s discretion over the display of artwork, subject to VARA’s limitations, and holding that permanently concealing murals painted directly onto a school building did not constitute modification or destruction under VARA).