Family refused permission
An artist who painted a mural of Murray Ball’s well-known Footrot Flats characters Wal and Dog told the late cartoonist’s family he would not go ahead with the work if he could not use his version of their likenesses.
Despite this, he painted the mural, telling officials who oversaw the work on a wall in the Manawatū town of Feilding that he had permission from Murray Ball’s family.
He did not.
Just over a month later, Ball’s family learned about the mural and, after they complained to the Manawatū District Council, it was painted over.
Correspondence released to RNZ shows that the artist, Ephraim Russell, contacted the Ball family on January 31 to seek copyright permission for his work, to be unveiled during the Manawatū Street Art Festival.
Murray Ball, who died aged 78 in 2017, was born in Feilding and is celebrated as one of the town’s favourite sons.
Russell is originally from Gisborne, where Ball lived for decades before his death, but is now based in Feilding.
Russell sent through the concept of his design, which was a modern take on Wal, showing him wearing sunglasses and ear pods. In a nod to Covid, Wal had a plaster on his arm after receiving a vaccination.
On February 1, Murray Ball’s son Gareth responded, saying the family would not give permission for that design. ‘‘It is not [yet] an accurate likeness of either character,’’ Gareth Ball wrote. ‘‘While we understand that you would like to modernise the characters, Murray wouldn’t want Wal to appear like this.
‘‘He is a traditional farmer and is less than likely to look cool or, as I see it here, a little staunch and aloof.’’
Gareth Ball said the reference to Covid could be lost in time, and Dog’s ears should be black, not white.
He said the family would be happy to look at a different version , explaining that ‘‘these are treasured and iconic characters that need to retain their original integrity’’.
After further correspondence, in mid-february Gareth Ball wrote to Russell, suggesting that he take the characters straight from Murray Ball’s work, saying his father never gave consent to others to draw them, apart from for the Footrot Flats film.
He also asked for a copyright acknowledgement accompanying the mural. ‘‘If you’re still intent on using your own interpretative artwork, then our consent will not be given.’’
On February 14, Russell replied, saying he would not go ahead with the project if he could not use his version of the characters. ‘‘However, Murray’s reasoning and consenting with his work are understandable, and I can respect those wishes.
‘‘I don’t think a reproduced version would work well with how I envisioned this project, with a theme based around ‘new life’ – whakahaumanu.’’
Gareth Ball told RNZ there was no further correspondence with Russell, but the artist went ahead with the mural.
RNZ’S attempts to contact Russell have been unsuccessful.
A month later, when the Ball family became aware of the mural, they contacted the council, saying permission was not given to Russell to proceed with his design.
Changes were made to the mural, but Gareth Ball reiterated to the council that the family were not happy with the mural and wanted it removed. ‘‘It doesn’t matter that he has made changes. We still don’t like it and don’t want it there . . . The fact that Mr Russell ignored our opinions and went ahead with this is completely unacceptable.’’
Gareth Ball sought an explanation from Russell, who he said had avoided contact, and the council.
Council community general manager Lyn Daly responded with an apology, saying Russell had told festival organisers that he had permission from the family, which he did not.
‘‘We willmake contact at some point, and we want to make sure that he learns about the seriousness of the misrepresentation and lack of consent as a result of this experience.’’
She suggested that further changes could be made to the mural, or it could be painted over.
Gareth Ball requested the latter. This happened the next day, March 19.
A letter to Russell from the council on March 22 said it was withholding 75% of his $5000 fee.
The letter said the street art festival working party had seen the correspondence between Russell and the Ball family, including where he said he would not go ahead with the work.
‘‘We were therefore somewhat surprised to find that even though you had said this to the Ball family, you still went ahead and painted the mural.
‘‘Whilst recognising the immense talent that you possess, it is unfortunate that the working party was left with no option but to cover over your work to appease the Ball family’s request.’’
Also on March 22, the council issued a press statement saying the mural had been removed.