Proskauer

When soccer fans descended on the Dallas-Fort Worth area for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, they found a city buzzing with promotional activations, fan events and various public art installations. However, one existing public mural, a 17,000-square-foot mural of humpbacks and marine life that had adorned a downtown Dallas building for nearly three decades, had been covered over in blue paint. Now, the artist behind that mural is suing FIFA and others in what could prove to be a whale of a legal battle invoking a specialized, relatively obscure section of the Copyright Act dealing with artists’ moral rights. (Wyland v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), No. 26-01794 (N.D. Tex. Filed June 1, 2026)).

Robert Wyland, known professionally as “Wyland,” is an artist recognized for large-scale public artwork focused on marine conservation. In 1999, Wyland painted "Ocean Life" (also known as “Whaling Wall 82”) on the exterior walls of an eight-story building in downtown Dallas. According to Wyland’s complaint, the mural spanned roughly 17,000 square feet and depicted an ocean scene with true-to-scale humpback whales, dolphins and other marine life. It was one of over 100 murals Wyland painted around the world to raise awareness about ocean pollution and conservation.

For nearly 30 years, the mural stood as, what Wyland called, an “iconic fixture of the Downtown Dallas skyline.” [See image below from Plaintiff’s complaint depicting the “Ocean Life” mural.]

Dallas was one of 16 host cities for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with nine matches played in nearby Arlington, Texas. According to the complaint, in the lead-up to the tournament, the wall displaying Wyland’s mural became the planned site for a new World Cup-related public art installation. Wyland alleges that he was not notified of this plan and did not give his consent.

The complaint alleges that, in mid-May 2026, work crews began painting over the mural to make way for proposed World Cup-related artwork to celebrate the arrival of the tournament in the city, and by May 18, most of the mural's larger wall had been covered in blue paint, leaving only a small portion of the work visible. Work on the replacement mural has reportedly since stopped. [See image below from Plaintiff’s complaint depicting the wall after being painted over.]

On June 1, 2026, Wyland filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Fédération Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA"), FIFA (Americas), Inc., FWC2026 US, Inc., 3PZ Property Company, LLC (“3PZ”), and Slate Asset Management (“Slate”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaint alleges that the Defendants "intentionally painted over and permanently destroyed" the mural without Wyland's notice or written consent, resulting in injury to Wyland, who seeks monetary damages. The complaint asserts that FIFA and its agents “authorized, promoted, and benefited from the destruction and replacement” of his work, that 3PZ owned the building, and that Slate, as an affiliated property manager, could not have allowed the painting-over without giving FIFA or its agents their consent. FIFA has reportedly denied any direct involvement and referred questions to the local organizing committee, which is not named as a defendant.

Wyland's suit hinges on the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (“VARA”), 17 U.S.C. § 106A, a section of the Copyright Act that grants visual artists certain "moral rights" over their work. Unlike ordinary copyright protections, which primarily concern economic rights such as reproduction and distribution, VARA’s right of integrity includes two related but distinct protections: the right to prevent intentional distortion, mutilation or modification of a qualifying work of visual art where the alteration would prejudice the artist’s honor or reputation, and the right to prevent intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work of “recognized stature.” These rights, given to “the author of a work of visual art,” generally last for the artist’s life and are not transferred merely because the physical work is sold. They may be waived only through a written instrument signed by the artist, which instrument specifically identifies the work and the uses to which the waiver applies. An artist who establishes a violation of VARA may seek actual damages and profits or statutory damages, which are enhanced if the artist proves that a violation was willful.

Those VARA provisions map onto Wyland’s complaint. First, he alleges that painting over “Ocean Life” was an intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of his work that “prejudiced his honor and reputation.” Second, he alleges that the mural had achieved “recognized stature” under the statute and that painting over it destroyed the work and violated his rights under VARA.

A key issue, if the case proceeds, will likely be whether a court finds that “Ocean Life” qualifies as a work of “recognized stature.” VARA does not precisely define that phrase. The Second Circuit in the Castillo case (discussed below), stated that “a work is of recognized stature when it is one of high quality, status, or caliber that has been acknowledged as such by a relevant community.”

Separate from the recognized-stature issue, the mural’s location on a building adds another important layer. VARA contains specific provisions for artwork incorporated onto a building. If the artwork is incorporated “in such a way that removing the work from the building will cause the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work,” then the artist's rights may be waived if the artist “consented to the installation of the work in the building ... in a written instrument” that specifies the work may be subject to destruction by reason of its removal. (See 17 U.S.C. § 113(d)(1)). Wyland alleges that no such written agreement was ever signed. However, VARA also contains a separate provision concerning a work that can be removed without such damage. Under that provision, “[i]f the owner of a building wishes to remove a work of visual art which is a part of such building and which can be removed from the building without … [its] destruction … or other modification of the work,” then, the artist’s rights will apply unless the building owner has made “a diligent, good faith attempt without success to notify the author of the owner's intended action affecting the work of visual art” or the owner has “provide[d] such notice in writing and the person so notified failed, within 90 days after receiving such notice, either to remove the work or to pay for its removal.” (See 17 U.S.C. § 113(d)(2)). Thus, should this case continue, another key issue will center on the nature of the mural, the existence of any prior written agreements between Wyland and the building’s owners, and whether Wyland was notified before the mural was painted over.

There have been just a handful of noteworthy VARA cases in the last few years that have explored the contours of the law, including disputes between artists and building owners. One of the leading examples is the Second Circuit’s decision in Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., 950 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2020), commonly known as the 5Pointz case. There, the court affirmed a $6.75 million statutory damages award after a building owner whitewashed 45 aerosol artworks at the 5Pointz site in Long Island City, New York, that had been found to have achieved recognized stature. The Second Circuit upheld the trial court’s finding, after considering “voluminous” testimony and documentary evidence, that the artworks at issue could qualify for VARA protection and the works achieved the requisite “recognized stature” under the statute.  To be sure, 5Pointz arose in a different jurisdiction and involved multiple works (some temporary, some permanent) that may have been of a different nature than Wyland’s mural. Although the 5Pointz decision is not binding in the Northern District of Texas, it remains one of the leading appellate decisions interpreting “recognized stature” under VARA and provides one framework for how courts have approached VARA claims involving public art displayed on buildings.

Wyland’s lawsuit remains far from the end line. As of this writing, Defendants have not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the complaint, so we will have to wait and see what defenses or substantive arguments they intend to assert.

The dispute sits at the intersection of sports promotion, public art, and property rights. Major sporting events often transform host cities through signage, fan zones, temporary installations, and public-facing branding. Wyland’s lawsuit asks what happens when that transformation collides with artwork that had already been part of a city’s visual landscape.