TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — A Taichung District Court on Friday (Aug. 23) dismissed Taichung City Government's lawsuit against a company for painting over the city's famous Rainbow Village landmark.

In 2022, employees of Rainbow Creative Co., the company responsible for operating Rainbow Village, allegedly painted over many of the artworks as a form of protest against the city government for ending its contract. Taichung City Government filed a lawsuit against the company's director, Wei Pi-ren (魏丕仁), and others.

However, Taichung District Court ruled Friday that no property rights were violated and dismissed the lawsuit, per CNA. 

In 2007, upon learning about the imminent demolition of military dependents' villages and surrounding houses due to urban redevelopment, veteran Huang Yung-fu (黃永阜) began painting the walls of his house and neighbors with colorful artworks. Over the years, the art zone in Nantun District attracted many domestic and foreign tourists before Huang's death on Jan. 23 at the age of 100. 

According to Taichung District Court's decision, the city government acquired the land and buildings of the original Rainbow Village during land rezoning in December 2013. As Huang continued to paint walls with his whimsical art, the government decided to temporarily halt demolition of the buildings.

In January 2014, the city opened the site as Rainbow Village, making it a popular tourist attraction in Taichung.

In August 2017, the Taichung City Cultural Affairs Bureau signed a maintenance agreement with Huang, stipulating that Huang would manage the buildings from Aug. 1, 2017, to July 31, 2020. The agreement was renewed from Aug. 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022. 

Huang and his representative, Wei, the head of Rainbow Creative Co., were to maintain the buildings' facilities and artworks during the contract period.

The city government argued that on July 30, 2022, out of anger over the contract not being renewed, Wei and his company employees painted over 17 village walls, damaging the murals created by Huang, thus reducing the overall aesthetic and artistic value of the buildings. The city government sought NT$1.5 million (US$46,000) in damages from Rainbow Creative Co. and Wei for restoration costs.

Rainbow Creative Co. argued that in 2010 and 2012, Huang transferred the copyrights of his completed and future works to Wei and others. In 2013, Wei brought in a creative team to begin planning and “beautifying” Rainbow Village. 

The company argued that the murals, as human intellectual creations, differ from the property rights stipulated under Article 811 of the Civil Code concerning building materials. The firm argued the city government's claim to full ownership of the murals based on property law was legally unsubstantiated, ignoring the unique nature of the artworks.

Wei claimed that when the buildings were handed over for maintenance in 2017, including the 17 walls in question, most of the walls and floors were without paintings or graffiti. During the maintenance period, Wei claimed he and his team had done the painting, graffiti, and artistic creations. Wei said he had no intention of transferring the copyright to others without compensation.

The judge considered that Huang had transferred the copyrights of both his completed and future works to Wei and others, granting them the right to reproduce and modify the works. The judge said the maintenance contract between Huang and the city government allowed for modification and even re-creation of the completed murals. 

The judge ruled that Wei's management and disposal of the murals did not constitute an infringement of the city's ownership. The judge said Wei and his team, given Huang's authorization, had the contractual right to manage the murals on the walls and floors.

The judge noted that during the contract period, Wei and his team did the necessary maintenance, such as repainting damaged walls and ground surfaces, and beautification projects. 

Although some of the murals were covered with paint shortly before the adoption period expired, the judge ruled this did not diminish the aesthetic value of the buildings compared to their state before adoption. Thus it could not be deemed an infringement of the city's property rights. 

The court dismissed the city government's lawsuit, but the case may be appealed.