Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
---------------------------------x
MASSACHUSETTS MUSEUM OF
CONTEMPORARY ART FOUNDATION, :
INC.,
:
Plaintiff, Civil Action
: No. 3:07-cv-30089-MAP
v.
:
CHRISTOPH BÜCHEL,
:
Defendant. :
---------------------------------x
John L. Gardiner
Elizabeth A. Hellmann
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
Four Times Square
New York, New York 10036
(212) 735-3000
john.gardiner@skadden.com
ehellman@skadden.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY.............................................................................................................3
ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................4
i
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 3 of 25
PAGE
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................20
ii
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 4 of 25
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE(S)
Flack v. Friends of Queen Catherine Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)..............................10
Lee v. Deck The Walls, Inc., 925 F. Supp. 576 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff'd,
125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997)......................................................................................................19
STATUTES PAGE(S)
TREATY PAGE(S)
iii
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 5 of 25
RULE PAGE(S)
133 Cong. Rec. E4257 (Oct. 29, 1987) (statement of Rep. Markey).............................................17
133 Cong. Rec. E4954 (Dec. 21, 1987) (statement of Rep. Frank) ...............................................17
135 Cong. Rec. S6811 (June 16, 1989) (statement of Sen. Kennedy)...........................................17
H.R. Rep. No. 101-514 (June 1, 1990), reprinted at 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6915.......................14, 15
ARTICLES PAGE(S)
Rep. Edward J. Markey, Let Artists Have A Fair Share Of Their Profits,
N.Y. Times, Dec. 20, 1987 ................................................................................................17
Cyrill P. Rigamonti, Deconstructing Moral Rights, 47 Harv. Int'l L. J. 353 (2006) ................8, 10
iv
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 6 of 25
INTRODUCTION
Foundation, Inc. ("MASS MoCA") and defendant Christoph Büchel ("Büchel"), a Swiss artist,
planned an installation for MASS MoCA's football-field-sized "Building 5," the museum's
premier gallery space. In the fall of 2006, MASS MoCA and Büchel agreed on a budget and an
opening date (December 16, 2006), and MASS MoCA personnel went to work gathering
MASS MoCA fully held up its end of that agreement, and more so. It expended
more than double the agreed-upon budget. MASS MoCA's personnel, working at Büchel's
direction, but at its own expense, purchased, procured, and built massive constructions in the
Building 5 space, including a cinema, nine industrial shipping containers joined by stairs, ladders
and other complex structures, a fuel tanker (decontaminated at MASS MoCA's expense), a
mobile home, an entire two-story house, and 40 tons of cinder block and mortar walls.
Büchel, on the other hand, did not live up to the parties' agreement. He was
months late in providing MASS MoCA with even a preliminary sketch of the planned
installation. He repeatedly promised to come to North Adams to work on the installation, only to
arrive late (and then stayed to work for far less time than he had promised). He even went on
"strike" once, not only demanding that MASS MoCA announce that the installation's agreed-
upon opening date would be delayed, but also demanding that the museum falsely state that it
On December 17, 2006, Büchel left MASS MoCA and the project, and never
returned. MASS MoCA's extensive efforts to convince Büchel to return to finish the planned
installation did not succeed. Ultimately, MASS MoCA sought a declaration from this Court that
it was entitled to display the materials and partial constructions assembled in Building 5 (the
1
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 7 of 25
"Materials") to guests of the museum. In the interim, in light of Büchel's assertions that any
display of the Materials would violate his rights, MASS MoCA covered the Materials with tarps
and other measures designed to obstruct public view of and access to the Materials. In response
to MASS MoCA's complaint, Büchel asserted counterclaims against MASS MoCA, demanding
that MASS MoCA pay him (in his words) "a very very big amount of money."1
Not only is Büchel not entitled to any (let alone "a very very big amount of")
money damages, MASS MoCA is entitled to the declaration it seeks based on clear stated law
that cannot reasonably be questioned. The U.S. Copyright Act expressly states that the legal
owner of the Materials -- here, MASS MoCA, which paid for, procured and/or built the
Materials -- has the right to display them to the public, even if Büchel would prefer otherwise.
Nor does the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 ("VARA")2 operate as a bar to the
public display of the Materials. VARA provides visual artists with important rights with respect
to their work, but VARA does not grant artists the right to decide whether a museum may display
materials assembled in connection with an abandoned exhibition. Nor does VARA bar the
display of unfinished work. Additionally, VARA does not regulate or extend to the
arrangements visual artists make with the persons who assist them in executing their designs. If
Büchel wanted to avoid the display of the unfinished Materials, or if he was unhappy with the
work performed on the Materials at his direction, his remedies were to return to work on the
MASS MoCA for its costs and take the Materials away from MASS MoCA. MASS MoCA
offered Büchel substantial additional resources and logistical support to finish the installation,
1
See p. 16 infra.
2
VARA was principally codified as § 106A of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101
et seq., and is therefore itself part of the Copyright Act.
2
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 8 of 25
and also offered him the opportunity to reimburse MASS MoCA for its costs and take the
Materials away. Büchel's refusal either to finish what he started or to compensate MASS MoCA
for the Materials and remove them does not entitle him to relief under VARA.
As a matter of law and undisputed fact, MASS MoCA should be granted the
declaration it seeks, and each of Büchel's Counterclaims should be dismissed with prejudice.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Pleadings Filed By The Parties. On May 21, 2007, MASS MoCA commenced
this action by filing its complaint seeking a declaration that it was entitled to display the
Materials assembled in Building 5. (Docket No. 1.) On July 2, 2007, Büchel answered that
complaint, and asserted counterclaims seeking money damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief prohibiting MASS MoCA from displaying the Materials to the public (the
"Counterclaims"). (Docket No. 7.) On July 12, 2007, MASS MoCA filed its reply to the
2007, MASS MoCA moved this Court for an expedited schedule in this action. (Docket No. 9.)
At the hearing on that motion on July 13, 2007, this Court granted an expedited schedule which
provided both parties with limited document and deposition discovery. (Docket No. 15.)
On August 13, 2007, MASS MoCA moved for a protective order to limit the use
of certain confidential documents that it had produced in discovery, and to prevent anticipated
commercial exploitation of discovery material by Büchel. (Docket Nos. 18-19.) The following
day, Büchel moved the Court to extend the scheduling order that it had previously entered and to
permit the continued deposition of Joseph Thompson, Director of MASS MoCA. (Docket Nos.
20-22.) After a hearing on August 17, 2007, this Court (per Neiman, Mag. J.) granted both
motions in part. In particular, the Court (1) limited the use of video recordings of depositions to
3
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 9 of 25
this case only; (2) allowed a further half-day's deposition of Mr. Thompson; and (3) adjusted the
briefing schedule previously set by the Court. (Docket Nos. 26, 27.) The further half-day
MASS MoCA refers the Court to its Local Rule 56.1 Statement Of Material Facts
ARGUMENT
This Court recently stated the standard applicable to motions for summary
As the First Circuit has frequently noted, "evidence illustrating the factual
controversy cannot be conjectural or problematic; it must have substance in the
sense that it limns differing versions of the truth which a factfinder must resolve."
Partelow v. Massachusetts, 442 F. Supp. 2d 41, 46-47 (D. Mass. 2006) (case citations omitted).
As demonstrated below, as a matter of law and undisputed fact, MASS MoCA is entitled to the
declaration it seeks here, and to the dismissal with prejudice of each of Büchel's Counterclaims.
It is undisputed that MASS MoCA and Büchel had agreed that after the planned
installation was finished, and after the public exhibition period at MASS MoCA had concluded,
MASS MoCA would give up any claim it had to the copyright in the finished work, and Büchel's
3
References to "56.1 Stmt." herein are to that Statement. References to "Trans.
Aff." herein refer to the Transmittal Affidavit Of Kurt Wm. Hemr, Esq., filed herewith.
4
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 10 of 25
sole title to any copyright in the completed work would not be contested. (Trans. Aff. Ex. 16, at
MASS MoCA 08314.) Of course, Büchel refused to finish the installation, and so that day never
came. Nonetheless, Büchel asserts that he is already the sole owner of any copyright in the
Materials for purposes of the Copyright Act and VARA, and that MASS MoCA does not own
The Materials as they now stand reflect significant aesthetic and design choices
by MASS MoCA personnel, including with respect to the layout of the Materials (56.1 Stmt.
¶¶ 97-99), and with respect to the selection and procurement of pre-existing buildings and
vehicles that have been modified and incorporated into the Materials. (Id. ¶¶ 96, 100.) If the
Materials in their current form constitute a joint work4 of Büchel and MASS MoCA, then Büchel
and MASS MoCA co-own any copyright or VARA rights to the Materials, and it would follow
that Büchel would have no copyright or VARA claim against MASS MoCA. See 17 U.S.C.
§ 201(a) (authors of joint work are "coowners" of copyrights); id. § 106A(b) (similarly as to
VARA rights); accord Seshadri v. Kasraian, 130 F.3d 798, 803 (7th Cir. 1997) (Posner, Ch. J.)
("If a joint work is marred by errors reflecting unfavorably on his coauthor … the coauthor might
conceivably have some legal remedy, but it wouldn't be under the Copyright Act.").
However, as demonstrated below, Büchel's claims are without any legal or factual
basis even if he were held to be the sole owner of any copyright in the Materials. The Court may
therefore grant summary judgment in MASS MoCA's favor here on its claim for declaratory
relief and on each of Büchel's Counterclaims without resolving that issue.5 For that reason,
4
" A 'joint work' is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that
their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." 17
U.S.C. § 101.
5
It should be noted that the same does not hold true with respect to any motion for
summary judgment in Büchel's favor. To establish a right to relief on any of his Counterclaims,
5
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 11 of 25
MASS MoCA assumes arguendo in the discussion which follows that Büchel is the sole owner
of any copyright in the Materials (but reserves all of its rights to dispute that contention).
The Copyright Act plainly acknowledges that a person may own a particular
physical copy of a work even if another person holds the copyright to that work:
17 U.S.C. § 202; accord id. § 106A(e)(2) (drawing same distinction under VARA).
Here, there is no dispute that MASS MoCA is the legal owner of the Materials in
Building 5, regardless of whether Büchel or anyone else holds any copyright in those Materials.
There is no dispute, nor could there be, that the various components of the Materials were either
(i) purchased by MASS MoCA with its funds, (ii) donated to MASS MoCA, or (iii) constructed by
MASS MoCA personnel and MASS MoCA's contractors from materials purchased by or donated to
MASS MoCA. Büchel has never sought to take possession of the Materials, nor has he otherwise
asserted that he is the rightful owner of the Materials. (56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 91-94.)6
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that Büchel were held to be the sole holder of
any copyright in the Materials, MASS MoCA -- as the legal owner of the Materials -- is expressly
Büchel would have to show as a matter of law and undisputed fact that he is the sole owner of
any copyright in the Materials, and not a coowner with MASS MoCA.
6
Nor could he be. As noted above, the parties agreed that after the installation had
been completed and fully exhibited, title to the completed work and any copyright therein would
pass to Büchel at the end of the exhibition period. (Trans. Aff. Ex. 16, at MASS MoCA 08314
("Upon termination of the exhibition, the fabricated work shall be owned outright by you …").)
This recognizes that before that point, Büchel enjoyed no such ownership rights.
6
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 12 of 25
entitled under the clear language of the Copyright Act to display them to the public, regardless of
17 U.S.C. § 109(c) (emphasis added). (The term "copy," as used in this section and elsewhere in the
Copyright Act, includes an original work. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 ("The term 'copies' includes the
A visual artist's rights to control the treatment of a work of visual art that are
independent of the artist's rights to sell or otherwise make economic use of the work are called
"moral rights." Moral rights are recognized by Article 6bis of the Berne Convention, an
international convention on intellectual property to which the United States is a party.7 Subsection
Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the
said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory
action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or
reputation.
Significantly, Article 6bis does not grant artists a right to prevent the display of their
work (a so-called "right of disclosure"). Article 19 of the Berne Convention recognizes that nations
may grant rights in addition to those provided by the Convention, such as the right of disclosure,
7
The Berne Convention For The Protection Of Literary And Artistic Works, Paris
Act, July 24, 1971, 25 U.S.T. 1341, 828 U.N.T.S. 221, reprinted at 17 U.S.C.A. § 104 (hereinafter
"Berne Convention").
7
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 13 of 25
and some nations (e.g., France) recognize such rights. But VARA does not. Nothing in VARA
Nor would the display of the Materials by MASS MoCA violate any of the rights
of attribution and integrity that VARA does grant to authors. The following addresses Büchel's
purported objections to MASS MoCA's display of the Materials and MASS MoCA's responses:
Right granted to authors by VARA ... … and why MASS MoCA's display of the
Materials would not violate that right:
§ 106A(a)(1): "… (A) to claim authorship MASS MoCA is not seeking to deny or credit
of [a] work, [or] (B) to prevent the use of his authorship of the Materials to Büchel. MASS
or her name as the author of any work of MoCA will do whatever Büchel prefers in that
visual art which he or she did not create." regard, and wants to be fair and entirely
transparent in any description of the Materials
and Büchel's view of or relationship to those
Materials. MASS MoCA is simply seeking the
right to display the Materials.
§ 106A(a)(2): "… to prevent the use of his Again, MASS MoCA is not seeking to credit
or her name as the author of the work of authorship of the Materials to Büchel: again,
visual art in the event of a distortion, MASS MoCA will do whatever Büchel prefers in
mutilation, or other modification of the work that regard. MASS MoCA is simply seeking the
which would be prejudicial to his or her right to display the Materials.
honor or reputation."
In any event, there has been no "distortion,
mutilation, or other modification" for purposes of
VARA: showing unfinished work does not
violate VARA (see Part II infra), nor does work
performed by MASS MoCA personnel on the
Materials constitute a VARA violation. (See Part
III infra.)
8
See Cyrill P. Rigamonti, Deconstructing Moral Rights, 47 Harv. Int'l L. J. 353, 405
(2006) ("VARA ignores the rights of disclosure and withdrawal and instead focuses on the rights of
attribution and integrity"); Marina Santilli, United States' Moral Rights Developments In European
Perspective, 1 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 89, 93 (1997) ("The right of disclosure does not exist
under VARA's formulation …").
8
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 14 of 25
Right granted to authors by VARA ... … and why MASS MoCA's display of the
Materials would not violate that right:
§ 106A(a)(3)(A):9 "to prevent any There has been no "distortion, mutilation, or other
intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification" for purposes of VARA: showing
modification of that work which would be unfinished work does not violate VARA (see Part
prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, II infra), nor does work by MASS MoCA
and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or personnel on the Materials constitute a VARA
modification of that work is a violation of violation. (See Part III infra.)
that right …"
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, MASS MoCA is entitled to a declaration that it may
At the July 13, 2007 hearing in this matter, Büchel's counsel asserted:
Showing a work that is half finished or not finished is an inherent distortion which
injures one's reputation.
(Hearing Tr. 40:19-21 (Docket No. 19).) There is no basis for that contention in VARA, and indeed
In addition to the rights granted by Article 6bis of the Berne Convention, some
countries grant visual artists a right to complete unfinished work and to prevent the display of
unfinished work (again, France is an example). VARA does not grant such a right. See Santilli,
supra, 1 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. at 93 ("American courts also have not followed the insight that
an incomplete work may be considered an impairment of the artist's right of integrity"). The
Southern District of New York has rejected claims that VARA provides a right against the display
of a work that the artist did not complete. Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 303, 329
(S.D.N.Y. 1994), rev'd in part on other grounds, 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S.
9
Another right granted by VARA is the right "to prevent any destruction of a work
of recognized stature," 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(B), which is presumably not at issue here.
9
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 15 of 25
1208, 116 S. Ct. 1824 (1996) ("VARA mandates preservation of protected art work and the
protection of artists' moral rights. … defendants' refusal to permit plaintiffs to 'finish' the Work does
not constitute 'distortion, mutilation, or other modification'"); see also Flack v. Friends of Queen
Catherine Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 526, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Carter; "VARA most decidedly
does not cover works that do not yet exist."). Accordingly, VARA does not bar MASS MoCA from
It is common in ordinary speech to talk about a work of art that has not yet been
completed as if it already existed in its complete form (e.g., "Some scenes in the next James Bond
film take place during a horse race in Siena, Italy."). In that informal way of speaking, it might
make sense to talk about an unfinished work as though it were a distorted or inferior version of a
complete work that may exist at some future date (e.g., "I haven't seen the film, only a rough cut.").
However, the Copyright Act is very clear that it does not protect works that do not
yet exist, although they might hypothetically be created in the future. The Copyright Act only
protects works that have actually been "fixed in [a] tangible medium of expression." 17 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) ("Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of
Accordingly, no "work" is protected by the Copyright Act other than in the form in
which it actually exists, even though it may be unfinished: "[W]here a work is prepared over a
10
Reading VARA to provide a right against the display of unfinished work would
be problematic for the further reason that such a reading would render it impossible to admit the
public to places where works of visual art are created -- as MASS MoCA and other museums
routinely do -- without violating VARA. Nor could an artist sign a blanket waiver generally
permitting public viewing of the work in progress: under VARA, "blanket waivers are
unenforceable." See Rigamonti, supra, 47 Harv. Int'l L. J. at 406; see also 17 U.S.C. § 106A(e)(1)
(setting forth criteria for satisfactory VARA waiver).
10
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 16 of 25
period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as
"distortion, mutilation, or other modification" of "work" that does not yet exist, because the only
"work" that VARA protects is the work that actually exists. The theory articulated by Büchel's
counsel that reads VARA to protect a hypothetical future work by preventing the display of a
work that does exist simply cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the Copyright Act,
The Copyright Act is clear that an author creating a work protected by the Act may
cause that work to be embodied in a particular medium through the work of other persons acting
under the author's authority. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 ("A work is 'fixed' in a tangible medium of
expression when its embodiment in a copy …, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently
permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived" (emphasis added)). Judge Pierre Leval, a noted
commentator on copyright law who now sits on the Second Circuit, remarked in an opinion that he
delivered as a judge of the Southern District of New York that large-scale sculptures and
installations in particular may require the use of third persons to implement the artist's designs:
Now, I think it is quite clear under the copyright law that authorship, even with
respect to sculptors, need not be in the form of the manipulation of the material.
Earlier during the closing statements of counsel, we had some discussion of the
concept of a sculptor who might sit in a chair, never moving and never touching
the materials, perhaps in part because he might be paralyzed or simply because
the materials might be large and heavy. There are sculptors nowadays who work
in huge materials, I-beams, storage tanks, things like that, that are welded together
where the sculptor's contribution is rendered entirely by the giving of instructions
to workmen to put a member in a certain position and bolt it to another member
and so forth. I think it is clear without question that such participation is
11
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 17 of 25
That is of course exactly what happened here. MASS MoCA, pursuant to the
agreement of the parties, made "fabricators, engineers, riggers, shop laborers, technicians [and] sub-
could build the planned installation. (Trans. Aff. Tab. 16 at MASS MoCA 08315; see also 56.1
Stmt. ¶¶ 7(a), 9, 25, 31-32, 43-46.) Büchel corresponded with MASS MoCA personnel regarding
their progress by e-mail and otherwise when he was not present in North Adams, and he
supervised them directly on the occasions that he actually was at MASS MoCA. (56.1 Stmt.
¶¶ 25, 31-32.) Even after Büchel left MASS MoCA in mid-December 2006, he continued to
correspond with MASS MoCA personnel working on the planned installation. (56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 43-
46.) Significantly, Büchel never advised MASS MoCA that its personnel should stop working
Not surprisingly, Büchel was sometimes unsatisfied with the results of the work
performed by MASS MoCA personnel and MASS MoCA's contractors. Sometimes Büchel felt
that the work was not done in precisely the manner that he had instructed, and sometimes he had
changed his mind about what should be done. In such cases, Büchel typically instructed MASS
MoCA personnel as to what corrective action he thought they should take. (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 32.)
And though MASS MoCA personnel frequently were called upon to use their discretion in
implementing Büchel's instructions, there is no evidence that they ever performed work on the
planned installation with the intention of making changes that they knew were contrary to
12
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 18 of 25
Now Büchel appears to contend that VARA actually precludes artists from working
with third persons in this fashion. In particular, he appears to contend that no one other than the
artist himself (or herself) may ever perform any work in fabricating visual art unless that specific
task has been authorized by the artist in a signed, written document satisfying the requirements set
forth in subsection (e)(1) of VARA, 17 U.S.C. § 106A(e)(1).11 Under that novel theory, in the
absence of documentation meeting that exacting VARA standard, an artist's assistant or other
worker who performs work in fabricating visual art -- even at the artist's express direction -- would
§ 106A(a)(3)(A), and would be liable to the artist for damages. See id. § 501(b).
MASS MoCA is not aware of any court or recognized authority on copyright law
that holds, per Büchel's theory, that VARA was intended to regulate artists' relations with assistants
and other persons who assist artists in carrying out their designs. Nor is MASS MoCA aware of any
such authority that holds that VARA was intended to supersede the Copyright Act's express
recognition that the author of a work may cause that work to be embodied with the assistance of
persons acting "under the authority of the author." 17 U.S.C. § 101. And for good reason:
application of that theory would impose an enormous and impractical logistical burden that would
make the creation of large-scale installations of the type contemplated here impossible to execute.
Indeed, adoption of that theory would have a "chilling effect" discouraging future installations of
this type, in that it would subject institutions that might undertake such projects to an ever-present
prospect of VARA liability if they took any step to construct an installation according to an artist's
11
That documentation problem could not be addressed by having the artist sign a
blanket waiver: as noted above, blanket waivers are not enforceable under VARA. See p. 10
n.10 supra.
13
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 19 of 25
The legislative history of VARA makes clear that VARA was intended to grant
artists in the United States rights (similar, albeit not identical, to rights granted by other countries)
against the distortion, mutilation or modification of visual art subsequent to the process by which
the art itself is created. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-514, at 6 (June 1, 1990) ("House Report On
VARA"), reprinted at 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6915, 6916 (quoting statement of Weltzin B. Blix of the
National Artists Equity Association, noting the possibility that "the fruits of [an artist's] effort will
be destroyed after a mere ten to twenty years" (emphasis added)); id. at 8, reprinted at 1990
U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6918 ("Under the American copyright system, an artist who transfers a copy of his
or her work to another may not, absent a contractual agreement, prevent that person from destroying
the copy or collect damages after the fact."). Nothing in that legislative history suggests that
Congress' intent was to make artists' routine disputes with those who assist them in creating their
work during the time that the work is being created a subject of federal copyright law.12 Nor should
Even assuming arguendo that VARA were applicable to work performed by MASS
MoCA personnel in an effort to carry out Büchel's instructions with respect to the planned
installation, and further assuming arguendo that some part of that work constituted a "distortion"
12
Application of Büchel's theory would be contrary to Congress' clear intent in
enacting VARA for the further reason that VARA was intended to bring the United States into
conformance with Article 6bis of the Berne Convention.12 See House Report On VARA, at 10,
reprinted at 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6920 (noting that enacting VARA "serves another important
Berne objective -- that of harmonizing national copyright laws"). Nothing in the Berne Convention
purports to grant artists rights against their assistants or other persons who help them create works
of visual art during the time that the work is being created. Interpreting VARA to grant artists
previously unrecognized rights with respect to the processes by which they create their works would
not "harmonize" U.S. copyright law with the law of other countries.
14
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 20 of 25
within the meaning of VARA, Büchel cannot adduce any evidence that any such purported
distortion "would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation" for purposes of VARA. See 17 U.S.C.
§§ 106A(a)(2), (3). By its terms, that is an objective test, requiring a showing that the purported
distortion would actually cause prejudice to an artist's "honor or reputation." 13 An artist's self-
serving claim that he or she is unhappy with a purported "distortion" of a work does not satisfy that
Here, it is widely known that Büchel did not complete the planned installation, and
that the Materials do not constitute a finished work by Büchel. (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 88.) Accordingly, to
prove that any purported "distortion" on the part of MASS MoCA was "prejudicial to his honor or
reputation," Büchel would have to present evidence that the artistic community actually considered
that purportedly "distorted" aspect of the Materials to be the result of some artistic misjudgment on
his part, rather than simply a consequence of the unfinished nature of the Materials.14 Büchel
cannot make that showing here. (Indeed, the apparent impossibility of making that showing with
respect to visual art that is universally known to be unfinished confirms that it is unworkable to read
VARA as governing disputes relating solely to the process by which visual art is created.)
offering for sale as artwork court filings and correspondence related to this dispute (see, e.g., Trans.
Aff. Ex. 3, Büchel Dep. Tr. 188:2-198:12; Ex. 80, at 5-6 (report on ArtInfo.com)), confirms that
Büchel himself does not genuinely believe that display of the Materials would be injurious to his
13
See House Report On VARA, at 16, reprinted at 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6926 (noting
that "Rules 701-706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permit expert testimony on the issue of
whether the modification affects the artist's honor or reputation").
14
For the reasons discussed in Part II supra, the fact that the Materials are not a
finished work does not constitute a "distortion" under VARA.
15
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 21 of 25
In March 2007, Büchel privately described his strategy for avoiding any
responsibility for the failure to complete the planned installation at MASS MoCA:
I would propose, and this not [out] of greed, but out of tactical reasons, … that we
should sue Mass Coma [sic] for a very very big amount of money …
Büchel followed through on this strategy in July 2007, when he asserted five
counterclaims against MASS MoCA, four of which seek the payment of money damages by MASS
MoCA. For the reasons explained below, all of those counterclaims lack any merit whatsoever,
MASS MoCA's claim for declaratory relief, i.e., that MASS MoCA is not entitled to show the
Materials. For the reasons stated in Parts I through IV supra, Büchel is not entitled to such a
declaration, judgment should enter in favor of MASS MoCA on that claim as a matter of law.
By his Second Counterclaim, Büchel seeks damages for three purported violations
First, Büchel asserts that MASS MoCA "has intentionally distorted and modified
the [Materials] in various ways … in a manner prejudicial to Büchel's reputation." (Countercl. ¶ 52.)
This allegation presumably refers to work that MASS MoCA personnel performed on the planned
installation in the expectation that Büchel would return to complete it. For the reasons stated in
16
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 22 of 25
Parts III and IV supra, that work does not constitute "distortion" or "modification" for purposes of
VARA, nor can Büchel show any prejudice to his reputation resulting from that work.
Second, Büchel asserts that MASS MoCA's use of tarps and other measures to
restrict public view of the Materials "distorted and modified" the Materials "in a manner prejudicial
to his reputation." (Countercl. ¶ 55; see also id. ¶ 53.) That is absurd, and entirely unsupportable:
simply covering up the Materials does not constitute a "distortion" or "modification" of the
Materials. The tarps and other measures are temporary, do not physically modify or harm the
Materials, and are entirely reversible. (56.1 Stmt ¶ 87.) Cf. House Report On VARA, at 17,
reprinted at 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6927 (noting that it is "physical modification" that is actionable
under VARA; e.g., a "shopping center that temporarily bedecked a sculpture of geese in flight with
ribbons at Christmas time" would not violate VARA).15 In any event, Büchel cannot show any
prejudice to his reputation resulting from those measures: everyone who sees those measures
knows that they were erected by MASS MoCA, not by Büchel, and that they are not actually part of
Third, Büchel asserts that MASS MoCA "has also allowed numerous individuals to
see and pass through" the Materials. (Countercl. ¶ 54.) For the reasons explained in Part II above,
the display of unfinished Materials itself does not constitute a violation of VARA. Nor does Büchel
15
Other statements from the legislative history confirm that VARA was directed at
preventing permanent damage to works of visual art, rather than ephemeral aspects of
presentation. E.g., 135 Cong. Rec. S6811 (June 16, 1989) (statement of Sen. Kennedy: "This bill
addresses a narrow and specific problem -- the mutilation and destruction of works of fine art
which are often one-of-a-kind and irreplaceable."); 133 Cong. Rec. S17370 (Dec. 4, 1987)
(statement of Sen. Pell, quoting Schuyler Chapin & Alberta Arthurs, A Bill Of Rights For Arts,
N.Y. Times, Oct. 29, 1987: "We don't want owners … to mutilate or destroy what they own.");
133 Cong. Rec. E4257 (Oct. 29, 1987) (statement of Rep. Markey quoting Chapin & Arthurs,
supra); 133 Cong. Rec. E4954 (Dec. 21, 1987) (statement of Rep. Frank quoting Rep. Edward J.
Markey, Let Artists Have A Fair Share Of Their Profits, N.Y. Times, Dec. 20, 1987, which
recounts a case in which a mail-order firm cut up an original Picasso print into 500 one-inch
square pieces for mail-order sale).
17
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 23 of 25
have any other kind of claim against MASS MoCA in this respect: MASS MoCA never agreed,
and would not have agreed, that no one would see Büchel's work in progress. In fact, Büchel was
present on several occasions during which visitors looked at the Materials, and even met with some
of those visitors. (56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 83-85; Trans. Aff. Ex. 38 (e-mail to MASS MoCA director
Thompson expressing thanks for tour and opportunity to meet Büchel).) His new claim that he was
always opposed to any public view of the Materials simply cannot be credited.
By his Third Counterclaim, Büchel seeks damages for a purported violation of his
exclusive right under 17 U.S.C. § 106(5) as the copyright holder of the Materials to display those
Materials. For the reasons explained in Part I supra, MASS MoCA has the right to publicly display
Accordingly, judgment should enter in favor of MASS MoCA on Büchel's Third Counterclaim as a
matter of law.
By his Fourth Counterclaim, Büchel seeks damages for a purported violation of his
exclusive right under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2) as the copyright holder of the Materials to create derivative
works based on those Materials, presumably either (i) by reason of the work that MASS MoCA
personnel performed on the planned installation in the expectation that Büchel would return to
to create a new work. 17 U.S.C. § 101. MASS MoCA's work on the Materials did not "recast[],
18
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 24 of 25
transform[], or adapt[]" any pre-existing work by Büchel. Indeed, the Materials would not exist in
the first place but for the work performed by MASS MoCA personnel pursuant to Büchel's
directions.
Nor did MASS MoCA's use of tarps and other view-restricting measures "recast[],
transform[], or adapt[]" the Materials. A change in the presentation of a copyrighted work that is
devoid of any creative content -- here, simply covering the work up -- does not result in the creation
of a derivative work. E.g., Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Video Broad. Sys., Inc., 724 F. Supp. 808,
821 (D. Kan. 1989) (addition of commercials to beginning of videocassettes containing copyrighted
motion pictures did not create derivative works); accord Lee v. Deck The Walls, Inc., 925 F. Supp.
576, 580-81 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff'd, 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997) (affixing copyrighted notecard to
ceramic tile did not create derivative work, citing Paramount; "No intellectual effort or creativity
based upon his alleged right under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2) as the copyright holder in a model and plans
that he and MASS MoCA created for the planned installation. (See 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 23-24.)
Assuming arguendo that Büchel were the sole holder of any copyright in the model and plans,
Büchel indisputably authorized MASS MoCA to commence work on the planned installation based
on the model and plans. Thus, to the extent that this counterclaim is based on (i) subsequent work
by MASS MoCA personnel on the Materials, or (ii) the use of the tarps and other view-restricting
measures, it is identical to his Fourth Counterclaim. Accordingly, judgment should likewise enter in
19
Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP Document 29 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 25 of 25
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant MASS MoCA's Motion in its
entirety, enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of MASS MoCA on its claim for declaratory
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kurt Wm. Hemr, hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF
system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of
Electronic Filing ("NEF"), and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered
participants on August 31, 2007.
20