First Circuit: Ownership of a Copyright in a Television Show Governed By Work For Hire Agreement Confirming Earlier Oral Agreement

In TMTV Corp. v. Mass Productions Inc., ---F.3d---, 2011 WL 2306514 (1st Cir. 2011), the First Circuit considered two competing Puerto Rican television shows 20 Pisos and El Condominio (more on Wikipedia here). As in so many of these stories, the initial brainstorming sessions were not set down in writing, later-produced scripts were the result of the amorphous brainstorming session, and in the end, all claimed copyright.

Here, one purported author supplied ideas at the brainstorming session. He lost because of copyright law's requirement of "fixation" - that is, that in order to have a copyright, the ideas must be written down.

Other authors wrote scripts based on the brainstorming session. Those authors, however, did not dispute that they'd agreed to write the scripts as works-for-hire. Later, the authors were paid and executed agreements stating that the scripts were works for hire.

For students of civil procedure and how it relates to the Copyright Act, the decision is instructive on the issues of settlements, damages, and pre- and post- judgment interest. The Hon. David H. Souter (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of the United States sat by designation.

Decision below.

TMTV Corp v Mass Productions (1st Cir. Puerto Rico June 13 2011)

 http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Seventh Circuit: No Moral Rights In Flower Gardens Under VARA

In Chapman Kelly v. Chicago Park District, 2011 WL 501161 (7th Cir. Feb 15, 2011), the Seventh Circuit rejected a claim of moral rights in a public garden in Chicago.

What is a painting?  What is a sculpture?   What is original and what is fixation?   All interesting questions tackled by the Seventh Circuit in determining whether an artist had moral rights in a garden under the Visual Artists Rights Act.

From the decision (linked below)

Simply put, gardens are planted and cultivated, not authored. A garden’s constituent elements are alive and inherently changeable, not fixed. Most of what we see and experience in a garden—the colors, shapes, textures,and scents of the plants—originates in nature, not in the mind of the gardener. At any given moment in time, a garden owes most of its form and appearance to natural forces, though the gardener who plants and tends it obviously assists. All this is true of Wildflower Works, even though it was designed and planted by an artist.

Of course, a human “author”—whether an artist, a professional landscape designer, or an amateur backyard gardener—determines the initial arrangement of the plants in a garden. This is not the kind of authorship required for copyright. To the extent that seeds or seedlings can be considered a “medium of expression,” they originate in nature, and natural forces—not the intellect of the gardener—determine their form, growth, and appearance. Moreover, a garden is simply too changeable to satisfy the primary purpose of fixation; its appearance is too inherently variable to supply a baseline for determining questions of copyright creation and infringement. If a garden can qualify as a “work of authorship” sufficiently “embodied in a copy,” at what point has fixation occurred? When the garden is newly planted? When its first blossoms appear? When it is in full bloom? How—and at what point in time—is a court to determine whether infringing copying has occurred?

Chapman Kelly v Chicago Park District


 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Visual Artists Rights Act: Artist Moral Rights in Unfinished Sculptural Works

In Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Foundation v. Buchel, --- F.3d ---, 2010 WL 297834 (1st. Cir. January 27, 2010), the First Circuit decided a case of first impression that decided a number of complex issues related to the Visual Artists Rights Act ("VARA").

I first wrote about the case here (Visual Artists Rights Act - Right to Display Works That Do Not Yet Exist - December 16, 2007).  The case involved a Swiss installation artist, Christoph Buechel (The "u" in Buechel has an umlaut, but Blogger, unless I am missing something, does not), who, without a clear written agreement, agreed with the Mass Moca to install one of his works.   It was agreed that Mass Moca would pay, and that Buechel would own the copy.

Buechel's installations have been likened to "bristling three-dimensional history paintings" yet are "so obsessively detailed that they might be described as panoramic collage" (full size images here).

The District Court denied Buechel injunctive relief and granted summary judgment against him.   The fact pattern was a law professor's delight:  during the installation, Mass Moca's staff (being directed by emails from Switzerland, allegedly made aesthetic decisions against the artist's will, made "compromises" he did not agree to, covered the work in tarps (allegedly inviting sneek peeks) and held an exhibition next door, which purportedly was orchestrated to subject the artist to ridicule (a local paper referred to the art as "Crap under Wrap").

A few takeaways from a decision that reads like a Peter Greenaway film watches:

1.  artists have rights in unfinished works;
2.  installations are sculptural works;
3. unfinished works are sufficiently "fixed" to be copyrightable subject matter;
4.  if you are going to allege joint authorship (as Mass Moca did, you have to specifically allege your copyrightable contribution);
5.  if you are a museum, get VARA waivers in advance or a clear understanding in writing of who pays for what and what happens if things go wrong;
6.  VARA's moral rights include "attribution" and "integrity";
7. no statutory damages for violations of an artist's right of attribution;
8.   VARA does not include a right of "divulgation" (which sounds a lot like the "display" or "distribution" rights under the Copyright Act;
9.   If you are going to argue that someone violated your rights to prepare a derivative work, if you do not develop the argument on appeal, the court may find that you waived it;
10.  Even if VARA doesn't help you, go back to Section 106 and find another traditional copyright that's been violated and allege it.

Here is the court's summary of its own holdings:
1. VARA's protection of an artist's moral rights extends to unfinished creations that are “works of art” within the meaning of the Copyright Act;

2. The right of integrity under VARA protects artists from distortions, mutilations or modifications of their works that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor, and prejudice must be shown for both injunctive relief and damages;

3. Büchel has adduced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether MASS MoCA violated his right of integrity on one of his three asserted bases for liability, namely, by modifying “Training Ground” over his objections in a manner that harmed his honor or reputation. His right-of-integrity claims based on the yellow tarpaulins and the mere display of “Training Ground” lack merit;
4. Büchel's right-of-attribution claim is moot, as VARA provides only injunctive relief to protect the right of attribution and the installation no longer exists;

5. The record reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether MASS MoCA violated Büchel's exclusive right under section 106(5) of the Copyright Act to display his work publicly;

6. Büchel fails to adequately develop his claim that MASS MoCA violated his exclusive right under section 106(2) to prepare derivative works based on “Training Ground,” and that claim is therefore waived.

We thus remand the case for further proceedings on Büchel's remaining right-of-integrity claim under VARA and his public display claim under section 106 of the Copyright Act.

Although this has been billed as a victory for artist's rights, it showcases some of VARA's weaknesses (no $$$ for the artist if a right to attribution is violated).   It also means that every museum counsel in the country, if not the world, will be trying to force artists to sign away rights as a condition of display.

Again, a decision and a fact pattern worth reading and savoring, but a decision that seems to be unfortunate for Mass Moca, an institution that seemed to be trying to support the avant-garde in an idealistic and trusting, if perhaps misguided manner.
A scaled-down version of the installation was exhibited at Art Basel in Miami Beach in 2007 and sold.

Visual Artists Rights Act - Right to Display Works That Do Not Yet Exist

The Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art sued Swiss artist Christoph Buchel over an installation called Training Ground for Democracy. Buchel is an installation artist who allegedly did not finish an installation piece. The MOCA wanted the right to display the unfinished installation that it had already spent $300,000 for.

In its brief in support of its summary judgment motion, Mass MOCA's counsel Skadden Arps found a couple of cases for the proposition that "VARA most decidedly does not cover works that do not yet exist." citing Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 303, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) rev'd on other grounds, 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995) cert. denied, 517 1208 (1996) and Flack v. Friends of Queen Catherine Inc., 139 F. Supp.2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

To find out whether the court agree with the argument that VARA did not cover non-existent works, I checked the PACER system for the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The court's decision was non-existent.

There was a notice of appeal, appealing from "a final order and/or judgment (or alternatively, order denying injunctive relief) announced from the bench on the 21st day of September, 2007 by the Honorable Michael A. Ponsor (1) denying Buchel's motion for summary judgment and request for injunctive relief under . . . . VARA . . . 17 U.S.C. Section 106A, and the Copyright Act Section 101 et seq. and (2) granting plaintiff's relief in its entirety, allowing it to display the work at issue with a disclaimer."

Practice Point: When a judge rules from the bench, counsel can do three things to get a piece of paper from which to appeal. First, order an expedited copy of the transcript from the court reporter. 1. submit the transcript to the judge and ask the judge to "so order" it; 2. submit a proposed order to the judge according to the judge's rules or 3. ask the judge whether the judge will be issuing a written order or decision so that you can appeal it.

Appeals generally require an appealable paper, that is, an existing written decision from a judge from which you appeal. It is analogous to the fixation requirement in copyright law.

Submitting a proposed order is generally the best and most elegant way of proceeding, and if it is not life or death and the court's discussion was lengthy, it will almost certainly help your accuracy to have the transcript. It allows you to get back to your office, clear your mind, and draft something that will make the court's decision clear. It also may be an opportunity to clarify an issue that you were not clear on from the court's oral comments.

I can't wait to see Mass MOCA's display of this non-existent work, to which VARA does not apply, and to see the disclaimer.

Some of the artist's demands in pursuing the work are found at Exhibitionist.

-The artist will not give permission to show an unfinished project nor will the artist allow the museum to show any work in progress, as the museum had suggested in previous discussion related to the postponed opening date.
- Money needs to be raised and in place to finish the project as it was proposed and completed.
- A projected budget for the second round will be sent, if an updated to punch list with very detailed photographs of the installation and the updated list of items that have been organized has been sent.
- The additional monies raised must cover the costs for ALL elements and ALL structural elements, which are clearly defined and which were much discussed. This money would have to cover the cost of the salaries, flights, per diem and housing for the 1st and 2nd round for assistants and the replacement crew and equipment to be hired.
- There is NO negotiation about the scope of the project. It will be realized as proposed.

Sounds like the non-existent Training Ground for Democracy has lessons for us all about the nature of democracy. The above photograph (of the non-existent exhibit) is found on Mass Moca's website. Does a photograph of a non-existent work exist? For more on Buchel, his work and the case, check out Anaba.