You Make The Call: Artist Dispute With California Coastal Commission Over License Plate Artwork

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

I found recent news of an on going dispute between Robert Wyland and the California Coastal Commission over the use of his whale tail license plate design quite interesting. I actually have this license plate on my car and never knew it was a Robert Wyland design. In short Wyland is asking that 20% of future revenue be donated to his art foundation and the California Coastal Commission is not interested.

The licensing arrangement was apparently a handshake deal and Wyland is arguing that it was never intended to last forever. I have mixed feelings about this dispute. The California Coastal Commission has been using the design for the license plate (its intended purpose), yet how could you relinquish the rights to an image on a handshake deal as an artist in this day and age.

For up and coming photographers the argument against Wyland is something commonly heard:

“For its part, the commission has reminded the artist that the Wyland brand and foundation have benefited from the goodwill and free publicity from the plates which also feature his signature. The plate appears on the commission’s Web site, press releases for the plate and DMV material that are mailed to millions of California drivers.

On the flipside Wyland argues:

“After allowing the state to use his intellectual property rent free for 14 years, Wyland said his foundation is entitled to an annual contribution. The alternative is the state gets nothing.

“I would just say it would be like Picasso lending one of his pieces for a license plate and them saying we’re not donating to the Picasso Foundation,” said Wyland, an official artist for the United States Olympic Team for the 2008 Games. “They’re saying ‘We can get anyone to paint a Picasso.’ Well you could, but it wouldn’t be a Picasso.”"

I can see both sides of this argument and really wonder why it took Wyland 14 years to suddenly realize that he should get some revenue off his donation. I have to really scratch my head why a license agreement wasn’t drafted and signed to avoid this kind of mess in the first place. On the flipside I hardly think the California Coastal Commission is doing as much as they claim to promote his artwork and contribution. I checked the California Coastal Commission web site and found two references to his name, but no link to his his web site or the web site of his art organization.

So who is to blame in this situation? You make the call… let me know how you interpret this mess.

Read the latest on this battle in this San Francisco Chronicle article:
Artist in spat over Calif license plate royalties

Technorati Tags: Robert Wyland, California Coastal Commission, licensing

Stay Connected with Jim
	Join Me On Twitter	Become a Fan on Facebook
	Listen to EXIF & Beyond	My Latest on YouTube

Posted by Jim on 06.17.2008 at 8:43 pm
Tagged: Copyright, Links & Articles, Photography , Copyright

http://www.rwongphoto.com/fieldreport Richard Wong

Sounds more like a guy who is struggling business-wise lately trying to make a quick buck off his mistakes from the past. If it were something minor or hadn’t been going for very long then I’d say the Commission is to blame, but in this case given that so many years has passed with his consent then it is on him in this instance.
http://www.enlightphoto.com/views/ Gary Crabbe / Enlightened Images

Artist who fails to set proper terms and limitations at outset of use risks courts ruling in favor of user having a royalty free license. That would be artists bad.

Of course, State could find a micro-stupid (I mean, Micro-STOCK) whale tail, run a few PShop artsy filters, opaque the output, and viola. Cost to state: Less than $50.00. That would be bad for artist.

BTW – JG Your claim that you never realized that was a Wyland image could actually hurt him in court if seeking damages. Don’t feel bad, I never knew it was his either.

Cheers.
mark

I’m not sympathic. Wyland has made millions, while the Commission struggles just to keep the lights on while having to protect California’s most valuable asset– our coast — from the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s liquid natural gas terminal projects, Clint Eastwood’s golf courses, Shea Homes’ Bolsa Chica wetlands housing developments and thousands of other misguided environmentally destructive developments…. I don’t understand why Wyland doesn’t realize that the money from the plate, which goes to protecting public access and funding coastal education programs, directly benefits and profits his California art biz. in Laguna Beach and elsewhere…..
http://www.sherrimeyer.com/Blog Sherri Meyer

Ditto Richard Wong’s comment.
http://www.jmg-galleries.com Jim

After rereading my post I was struck by the conflicting terms in “get some revenue off his donation”. It’s a donation. There shouldn’t be any case in which you go back on a donation and expect payment in return.

Being fair with out knowing the details its tough to say for certain who is more in the right on this one, but given what has been revealed about the conflict its fair to say its looking like Robert Wyland has made several mistakes that make it difficult to have much sympathy for him.

@Richard I do agree. This seems like an artist scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for income.

@Gary You’re dead on. Artist set the tone of every business relationship with the terms and limitations placed in their agreements. It should be interesting to see how this all falls out.

@mark For all the good that the Coastal Commmission does its hard to understand how anyone could go back looking for a portion of the proceeds from their efforts. I understand the creativity behind making the art work, but if 20% of my $50 donation starts going to Wyland it dilutes the cause. If Wyland wants income he should generate his own license plate to fund his art organization. I’m not donating my money for that plate to support art and the coastal commission. The goal is to support the coastal commission.

@Sherri What I said to Richard
http://www.grafphoto.com/wordpress Mark

How many times have we all been schmoozed on the benefits of ‘free publicity and exposure?’ That line makes me gag every time.

It looks bad to let it go on for so long, but in the end, unless he gave away rights to that work in writing, he still owns the copyright and has the authority to allow or deny the usage. I don’t know how that would stand up in court though.

I know there is a property rights law (name escapes me) where if someone say makes a stake on your property, and you don’t raise any objection for 7 years, you lose the right to make any claims. Not sure if the same applies for intellectual property.
http://www.photoattorney.com Carolyn E. Wright

A court likely would treat this as a contract dispute. When terms of the contract are missing, the court will impose them on the parties. The evidence and/or prior discussions between the parties may make the difference.

Some photographers are intimidated by big, lengthy licensing agreements with legalese. At minimum, they should put the “who, what, why, how, and when” into an email, even as a follow up to confirm the agreement.

Note: Mark referenced what is called “adverse possession” in real property law. It doesn’t apply to intellectual property.
http://www.jmg-galleries.com Jim

@Carolyn Thanks for adding to the conversation about this. It’s news to me that a court would impose basic contract terms in such an agreement. Interesting view into the legal side of this. I’m looking forward to seeing how it plays out.