Fountain’s Destruction Costs Former Owner

Lawyers for a New York sculptor and the former owner of MGM Plaza in Santa Monica have settled the sculptor’s $1-million lawsuit claiming the building owners ruined a public work of art when they dismantled and destroyed a fountain he designed for the office complex.

Sculptor Paul Von Ringelheim sought damages from Colorado Place Partners, a group headed by prominent Los Angeles developer Rob Maguire, for destroying a 20-foot-high stainless steel fountain called Skybolt No. 1.

Although the $220,000 settlement does not establish legal precedent, lawyers for both sides said it has significant implications for building owners because many of them may not be aware that they cannot legally remove or destroy public works of art without permission from the artists. Many cities, including Santa Monica and Los Angeles, require developers to include public art in their projects.

Von Ringelheim, whose suit cited state and federal statutes designed to protect works of art, designed the fountain in 1981 for Colorado Place, a complex at Colorado Avenue and Cloverfield Boulevard that has since been renamed MGM Plaza. The fountain was placed in an atrium in the 15-acre complex, which includes more than 1 million square feet of offices, shops and restaurants.

When the fountain was destroyed in 1998, MGM Plaza was owned by Colorado Place Partners, according to the sculptor’s lawsuit. Colorado Place Partners acquired the property in 1997 and sold it in May to an affiliate of New York-based Tishman Speyer Properties for more than $350 million, according to a Times report.

The attorney for Colorado Place, Frank Gooch III of Gilchrist & Rutter in Santa Monica, admitted that his client destroyed the fountain, saying it was damaged in the Northridge earthquake. But he said Colorado Place Partners had no idea the fountain was art and would not knowingly have destroyed a work of art.

Von Ringelheim’s attorney, Laurie Murphy of Valensi, Rose & Magaram in Century City, contends that the building owners, who replaced the fountain atrium with additional office space, did know that the fountain was a work of art and were intent on removing it from the complex.

“Here you’ve got one of the most sophisticated real estate developers in the city, if not the country, saying we don’t know what the law is,” Murphy said. “For them to say they didn’t know it was against the law to destroy a piece of art, it defies belief.”

Von Ringelheim’s suit alleged that, after the sculptor designed the fountain, a copyright symbol was stamped on its base. The sculptor was paid more than $100,000 for the fountain, and its value had increased over time, the suit said.

The fountain could have been removed from the property without being destroyed, according to the suit, which contended that Colorado Place Partners made no effort to contact Von Ringelheim about the planned destruction.

In its defense, Colorado Place Partners said it felt that it was simply destroying “a dysfunctional fountain.”

Both lawyers agreed that the suit has implications for other building owners because many cities require developers to include public art as part of their projects. That art, in turn, is protected by the federal Visual Artists’ Rights Act and the California Artists’ Preservation Act.

“These are very little-known statutes which confer significant rights upon artists who create fine art or visual art,” Gooch said. “I don’t think a lot of landlords have focused on who really owns the art they have commissioned for their projects.”

Landlords “ought to look around and see what they have that might be public art and, if it is art, they should take steps to maintain it and think twice before they tear something down,” Murphy said.

The laws grant artists ownership rights to their works for up to 50 years after their deaths, unless the artists sign written waivers relinquishing the rights, Gooch said.

“I can see more of these cases being brought against unsuspecting landlords who paint over a mural or, as in our case, destroy what we thought was a dysfunctional fountain and then be slapped with a lawsuit,” Gooch said.

“You just can’t remove a piece of art without getting the artist’s consent or giving them the opportunity to remove it themselves,” Murphy said.