Comments on: From the Annals of Commercialization http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/ culture, politics and spirituality Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:17:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: More City Mural Suit Background « Portland Public Art http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-137157 More City Mural Suit Background « Portland Public Art Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:50:51 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-137157 [...] April and October of 2006, muralist Joe Cotter responded to a post from Arlene Goldbard with some great insights into the long running AK Media (Clear Channel) v City of Portland suit, in [...] [...] April and October of 2006, muralist Joe Cotter responded to a post from Arlene Goldbard with some great insights into the long running AK Media (Clear Channel) v City of Portland suit, in [...]

]]> By: Stew Martin http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-97963 Stew Martin Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:26:35 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-97963 A mural or a sign? Portland's battle may visit Manzanita I am one of many concerned citizens here in a village fewer than 1000 (officially) - caused by a new draft sign ordinance from the Manzanita Planning Commission. There are numerous local "signs" (actually murals, art paintings or objects, painted or cast metal benches) that would appear be banned by this draft ordinance. I hope the Commission here will see the error of its ways a week from Monday, when they hear public input ... but they may not. They have not even attempted so far to save art from bans on commercial signage. We would very much appreciate help and guidance ... key arguments, good articles, bumper stickers, legal briefs, and contact info for Joe Cotter and the expert witnesses (like John Frohnmayer) who came to Judge Marcus' courtroom. All assistance would be greatly appreciated. Stewart Martin and others A mural or a sign? Portland’s battle may visit Manzanita

I am one of many concerned citizens here in a village fewer than 1000 (officially) - caused by a new draft sign ordinance from the Manzanita Planning Commission. There are numerous local “signs” (actually murals, art paintings or objects, painted or cast metal benches) that would appear be banned by this draft ordinance.

I hope the Commission here will see the error of its ways a week from Monday, when they hear public input … but they may not. They have not even attempted so far to save art from bans on commercial signage.

We would very much appreciate help and guidance … key arguments, good articles, bumper stickers, legal briefs, and contact info for Joe Cotter and the expert witnesses (like John Frohnmayer) who came to Judge Marcus’ courtroom.

All assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Stewart Martin and others

]]> By: Arlene Goldbard » Blog Archive » Two Cheers for Jurisprudence http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-84703 Arlene Goldbard » Blog Archive » Two Cheers for Jurisprudence Tue, 15 May 2007 04:19:41 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-84703 [...] More than a year ago, I wrote about a court case in Portland, Oregon. A mega-corporate billboard company claimed that it was unconstitutional for the city of Portland, Oregon, to regulate billboards but not murals, thus erasing the legal distinction between art and signage. Astoundingly, they won a decision and damages, and community murals started being officially treated like billboards, with a chilling effect on community-based public art. After a long string of appeals, the arguments made by Joe Cotter, who was permitted to intervene as a friend of murals, have prevailed. Here’s a bit from Judge Michael Marcus’s May 8th opinion: The intervener’s evidence demonstrated a number of ways in which the channel of communication that is characterized by mural art is vastly distinct from the channel of communication that is characterized by standardized billboard posters and bulletins. There are substantial differences in the manner of production and distribution, the expected duration and permanency, and, at least potentially, in the relationship between the owner of the surface and the persons and entity who apply media to that surface. It is easy to predict how attempts to articulate regulatory definitions might stray into prohibited distinctions based on content. There may be challenges in avoiding content-based regulations with respect to wall murals whose proponents wish to employ them for commercial purposes. But nothing in this court’s Opinions say that the City cannot attempt to free wall murals from sign regulations in ways that do not depend on the content of the message displayed. [...] [...] More than a year ago, I wrote about a court case in Portland, Oregon. A mega-corporate billboard company claimed that it was unconstitutional for the city of Portland, Oregon, to regulate billboards but not murals, thus erasing the legal distinction between art and signage. Astoundingly, they won a decision and damages, and community murals started being officially treated like billboards, with a chilling effect on community-based public art. After a long string of appeals, the arguments made by Joe Cotter, who was permitted to intervene as a friend of murals, have prevailed. Here’s a bit from Judge Michael Marcus’s May 8th opinion: The intervener’s evidence demonstrated a number of ways in which the channel of communication that is characterized by mural art is vastly distinct from the channel of communication that is characterized by standardized billboard posters and bulletins. There are substantial differences in the manner of production and distribution, the expected duration and permanency, and, at least potentially, in the relationship between the owner of the surface and the persons and entity who apply media to that surface. It is easy to predict how attempts to articulate regulatory definitions might stray into prohibited distinctions based on content. There may be challenges in avoiding content-based regulations with respect to wall murals whose proponents wish to employ them for commercial purposes. But nothing in this court’s Opinions say that the City cannot attempt to free wall murals from sign regulations in ways that do not depend on the content of the message displayed. [...]

]]> By: Joe Cotter http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-74357 Joe Cotter Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:41:21 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-74357 The closing arguments at the Clear Channel v City of Portland trial will take place at the Multnomah County Courthouse on Thursday, March 22nd at 9:30 a.m. in Room 538. The parties are Clear Channel as well asThe City of Portland and I will be arguing from the artist’s point of view. There are some new developments in the case. I hope to come back to the Portland City Council before long to discuss revisiting the rules for art in the public realm. I will post the outcomeof the hearing tomorrow. Thank you, Joe Cotter, Portland Mural Defense The closing arguments at the Clear Channel v City of Portland trial will take place at the Multnomah County Courthouse on Thursday, March 22nd at 9:30 a.m. in Room 538. The parties are Clear Channel as well asThe City of Portland and I will be arguing from the artist’s point of view. There are some new developments in the case. I hope to come back to the Portland City Council before long to discuss revisiting the rules for art in the public realm.
I will post the outcomeof the hearing tomorrow.
Thank you, Joe Cotter, Portland Mural Defense

]]> By: Portland Mural Defense http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-65462 Portland Mural Defense Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:46:09 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-65462 Here is the e-mail address for Portland Mural Defense (see below) if you'd like information about the Clear Channel v City of Portland (murals) case. PMD is a not-for-profit arts advocacy project. We represent concerned citizens who are concerned about the terrible lack of independent voices represented by our US media, particularly outdoor media. Billboards are impossible for the public to avoid. You can't change the channel, turn it off, or shut your eyes. In the end- the biggest question is : "Who gets to speak in public?" More and more the answer is "multinational corporations". If you have ideas to share, or are just curious about where things stand now, please write to us. And, thank you, Arlene, for keeping up on the Portland mural scene! Portland Mural Defense Box 33098 Portland, OR 97292-3098 portlandmuraldefense@yahoo.com Here is the e-mail address for Portland Mural Defense (see below) if you’d like information about the Clear Channel v City of Portland (murals) case.

PMD is a not-for-profit arts advocacy project.
We represent concerned citizens who are concerned about the terrible lack of independent voices represented by our US media, particularly outdoor media.
Billboards are impossible for the public to avoid.
You can’t change the channel, turn it off, or shut your eyes.
In the end- the biggest question is : “Who gets to speak in public?”
More and more the answer is “multinational corporations”.

If you have ideas to share, or are just curious about where things stand now, please write to us.

And, thank you, Arlene, for keeping up on the Portland mural scene!

Portland Mural Defense
Box 33098
Portland, OR 97292-3098
portlandmuraldefense@yahoo.com

]]>