Comments on: From the Annals of Commercialization http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/ Here to get your hopes up. Sun, 20 May 2012 22:05:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: More City Mural Suit Background « Portland Public Art http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-205 More City Mural Suit Background « Portland Public Art Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:50:51 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-205 [...] 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-204 Stew Martin Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:26:35 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-204 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-203 Arlene Goldbard » Blog Archive » Two Cheers for Jurisprudence Tue, 15 May 2007 04:19:41 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-203 [...] 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-202 Joe Cotter Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:41:21 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-202 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-201 Portland Mural Defense Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:46:09 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-201 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

]]> By: Portland Mural Defense http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-200 Portland Mural Defense Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:11:52 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-200 Closing (oral) arguments in this case will be presented by all three parties on March 22, 2007 at 9:00 am, in Multnomah County Court in downtown Portland. Please join us in the courtroom for a summation of the issues (and meet some great Portland mural artists, while you are there!). Judge Marcus' decision will come some months after these last oral arguments. Please contact Portland Mural Defense for more information. Closing (oral) arguments in this case will be presented by all three parties on March 22, 2007 at 9:00 am, in Multnomah County Court in downtown Portland.
Please join us in the courtroom for a summation of the issues (and meet some great Portland mural artists, while you are there!).
Judge Marcus’ decision will come some months after these last oral arguments.
Please contact Portland Mural Defense for more information.

]]> By: Joe Cotter http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-199 Joe Cotter Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:33:09 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-199 Dear mural artists and supporters, The Clear Channel trial actually did provide a forum for Portland area mural artists and arts advocates to express themselves about the differences between murals and billboards. It turned out to be a lesson in media, the different constituencies expressing themselves through public art and billboards, the mural process, the use of murals to express political and social concerns and the fact that billboards are all about the money. We are hoping that this effort may result in some real change in the coming months and years. There was a pretrial hearing on September 21st and the City filed some pretrial motions that were approved by Judge Michael H. Marcus. Clear Channel's case was limited and the mural program removed from constitutional scrutiny by the decision. Unfortunately, my case was decimated by the rulings as well. I offered to withdraw as a party because I could no longer see how the case I was planning to present was viable anymore. Judge Marcus encouraged me to think it over. Fortunately I stayed in the trial. The trial commenced Monday. I had already filed a motion to reconsider the ruling to limit the evidence but the judge once again ruled against me. Over the next day and a half, I managed to construct a foundation to call witnesses by eliciting favorable testimony from the City and Clear Channel witnesses during cross examination. We were finally able to put on a case at the Clear Channel trial. I found out on Wednesday morning at 10:30 a.m. that we would be able to call witnesses and introduce evidence. We had several people waiting for a phone call and willing to testify. Kathy Oliver, Director of Outside In was the first to testify. Jenny Joyce and Kolieha Bush, both mural artists, testified and then Gideon Hughes, speaking of an earlier PCASC (Portland Central America Solidarity Committee) mural (1988) on the Riverway Inn was next. Gideon was followed by Isaka Shamsud-Din, a retired professor at Portland State University and nationally recognized mural artist who was followed by me. Thursday morning, John Frohnmayer, former head of the National Endowment for the Arts and former Oregon Arts Commission member testified and then Henry Sayre, a professor at Oregon State University in Bend and author of art text books and other books as well as a 10 part series on OPB television. The testimony of the witnesses for art was very well presented we managed to get most of our points on the record. All of the witnesses complemented one another. Isaka Shamsud-Din's testimony was riveting and John Frohnmayer and Henry Sayre's presence went a long way to add legitimacy to our effort with the other parties. By the way, Isaka, Hector Hernandez, Baba Wague Diakite and I are painting an 1800 square foot mural on the south wall of the Musicians Union on NE 20th between Burnside and Sandy. Isaka Shamsud-Din is the coordinator. We hope to be finished in a week or so. Our closing arguments are scheduled for November 30, 2006. We are encouraging people to attend. Room 538, Multnomah County Courthouse, Portland. I want to thank everyone who has worked to get the word out about the mural issue in Portland. In particular, I want to thank Joanne Oleksiak of Portland Mural Defense for the incredible amount of work she has put into this effort over the years. I also want to thank and acknowledge the witnesses and those who were willing to be witnesses but were unable to be called due to the twists and turns in the trial. I can’t thank you enough. That includes the people who were willing to travel to Portland to support this effort and those who provided a venue for us to address this issue as well. Thank you. A special thanks to Susan and Mac at Ash Creek Press and Kathy Oliver at Outside In. You too Mark! And I can’t forget the sign counters, Robin, Gideon and Rin. Actually, the list is very long and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart! Finally, the fact that we were able to get on record is a step in the right direction but only a step. Nothing is likely to change legally as a result of this phase of the trial and we’ll see what the judge’s opinion says and what the Portland City Council is willing to do. The climate for mural painting has improved since murals and other art in the public forum were first reclassified as signs in 1998 but it is a far cry from what the City of Portland says it stands for and it is unacceptable as a permanent solution. So, please keep the word out. This is a good time to write the Mayor, the City Commissioners and the various media outlets. Maybe we can finally achieve real support for murals in Portland. Thank you and Peace. Joe Cotter, Portland Mural Defense Dear mural artists and supporters,
The Clear Channel trial actually did provide a forum for Portland area mural artists and arts advocates to express themselves about the differences between murals and billboards. It turned out to be a lesson in media, the different constituencies expressing themselves through public art and billboards, the mural process, the use of murals to express political and social concerns and the fact that billboards are all about the money. We are hoping that this effort may result in some real change in the coming months and years.
There was a pretrial hearing on September 21st and the City filed some pretrial motions that were approved by Judge Michael H. Marcus. Clear Channel’s case was limited and the mural program removed from constitutional scrutiny by the decision. Unfortunately, my case was decimated by the rulings as well. I offered to withdraw as a party because I could no longer see how the case I was planning to present was viable anymore. Judge Marcus encouraged me to think it over. Fortunately I stayed in the trial.
The trial commenced Monday. I had already filed a motion to reconsider the ruling to limit the evidence but the judge once again ruled against me. Over the next day and a half, I managed to construct a foundation to call witnesses by eliciting favorable
testimony from the City and Clear Channel witnesses during cross examination.
We were finally able to put on a case at the Clear Channel trial. I found out on Wednesday morning at 10:30 a.m. that we would be able to call witnesses and introduce evidence. We had several people waiting for a phone call and willing to testify. Kathy Oliver, Director of Outside In was the first to testify. Jenny Joyce and Kolieha Bush, both mural artists, testified and then Gideon Hughes, speaking of an earlier PCASC (Portland Central America Solidarity Committee) mural (1988) on the Riverway Inn was next. Gideon was followed by Isaka Shamsud-Din, a retired professor at Portland State University and nationally recognized mural artist who was followed by me.
Thursday morning, John Frohnmayer, former head of the National Endowment for the Arts and former Oregon Arts Commission member testified and then Henry Sayre, a professor at Oregon State University in Bend and author of art text books and other books as well as a 10 part series on OPB television.
The testimony of the witnesses for art was very well presented we managed to get most of our points on the record. All of the witnesses complemented one another. Isaka Shamsud-Din’s testimony was riveting and John Frohnmayer and Henry Sayre’s presence went a long way to add legitimacy to our effort with the other parties.
By the way, Isaka, Hector Hernandez, Baba Wague Diakite and I are painting an 1800 square foot mural on the south wall of the Musicians Union on NE 20th between Burnside and Sandy. Isaka Shamsud-Din is the coordinator. We hope to be finished in a week or so.
Our closing arguments are scheduled for November 30, 2006. We are encouraging people to attend. Room 538, Multnomah County Courthouse, Portland.
I want to thank everyone who has worked to get the word out about the mural issue in Portland. In particular, I want to thank Joanne Oleksiak of Portland Mural Defense for the incredible amount of work she has put into this effort over the years. I also want to thank and acknowledge the witnesses and those who were willing to be witnesses but were unable to be called due to the twists and turns in the trial. I can’t thank you enough. That includes the people who were willing to travel to Portland to support this effort and those who provided a venue for us to address this issue as well. Thank you. A special thanks to Susan and Mac at Ash Creek Press and Kathy Oliver at Outside In. You too Mark! And I can’t forget the sign counters, Robin, Gideon and Rin. Actually, the list is very long and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart!
Finally, the fact that we were able to get on record is a step in the right direction but only a step. Nothing is likely to change legally as a result of this phase of the trial and we’ll see what the judge’s opinion says and what the Portland City Council is willing to do. The climate for mural painting has improved since murals and other art in the public forum were first reclassified as signs in 1998 but it is a far cry from what the City of Portland says it stands for and it is unacceptable as a permanent solution. So, please keep the word out. This is a good time to write the Mayor, the City Commissioners and the various media outlets. Maybe we can finally achieve real support for murals in Portland.
Thank you and Peace. Joe Cotter, Portland Mural Defense

]]> By: Joe Cotter http://arlenegoldbard.com/2006/02/21/from-the-annals-of-commercialization/#comment-198 Joe Cotter Sat, 01 Apr 2006 06:19:08 +0000 http://arlenegoldbard.com/?p=171#comment-198 Dear Arlene, Thank you for posting this article. I have been in touch with Michael Schwartz about this issue and he had some helpful suggestions. There was a trial, AK Media (Clear Channel) v City of Portland scheduled for April 12, 2006. It has been rescheduled for October 2nd, 2006 at the Multnomah County Courthouse, Portland Oregon. I have been allowed to intervene in the case as a mural artist with the ability to call witnesses etc. I filed a trial brief on February 28th and I am waiting for Clear Channel's response. The Billboard companies won a huge lawsuit last week in the Oregon Supreme Court (Outdoor Media Dimensions) and Clear Channel was all over it. The decision invalidates a distinction allowed in the Federal Highway beautification Act between on and off premises signs. It also invalidated the permit process for signs of all types so it may be a free for all for billboards until the Oregon Legislature acts. We are moving ahead with our case for public art but we are running against a tide of case law affirming corporate personhood and trivializing individual rights of expression. Thanks again for your concern. Joe Cotter Dear Arlene,
Thank you for posting this article. I have been in touch with Michael Schwartz about this issue and he had some helpful suggestions. There was a trial, AK Media (Clear Channel) v City of Portland scheduled for April 12, 2006. It has been rescheduled for October 2nd, 2006 at the Multnomah County Courthouse, Portland Oregon. I have been allowed to intervene in the case as a mural artist with the ability to call witnesses etc. I filed a trial brief on February 28th and I am waiting for Clear Channel’s response. The Billboard companies won a huge lawsuit last week in the Oregon Supreme Court (Outdoor Media Dimensions) and Clear Channel was all over it. The decision invalidates a distinction allowed in the Federal Highway beautification Act between on and off premises signs. It also invalidated the permit process for signs of all types so it may be a free for all for billboards until the Oregon Legislature acts.
We are moving ahead with our case for public art but we are running against a tide of case law affirming corporate personhood and trivializing individual rights of expression.
Thanks again for your concern. Joe Cotter

]]>