Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.
71 F.3d 77 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), a work of art is considered a 'work made for hire' and is excluded from protection if an analysis of the common law of agency factors demonstrates that the artist was an employee rather than an independent contractor, even if the artist retained significant artistic freedom.
Facts:
- SIG Management Company, the managing agent for a building's lessee, entered into an agreement with three artists, John Carter, John Swing, and John Veronis, to create and install a sculpture in the building's lobby.
- The agreement gave the artists full artistic authority but stated they could be assigned 'other related services and duties.'
- The artists were paid a weekly salary, and the company paid their payroll and social security taxes, provided employee benefits like health insurance and paid vacations, and contributed to unemployment and workers' compensation funds.
- Over a period of more than two years, the artists created a large, integrated 'walk-through sculpture' from recycled materials.
- In addition to the main lobby sculpture, the artists were assigned and completed other art projects on different floors of the building without further compensation.
- The building's lease was terminated, and the new management, Helmsley-Spear, Inc., representing the owner 474431 Associates, took possession of the property.
- Representatives of the new management informed the artists they must stop work and indicated their intent to remove the sculpture from the lobby.
Procedural Posture:
- The artists (plaintiffs) sued the building owner and managing agent (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to prevent the removal of their artwork.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order and subsequently a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from altering or removing the artwork.
- Following a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the artists, finding the work was a 'work of visual art' protected by VARA and not a 'work made for hire.'
- The district court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for waste and the plaintiffs' claim for tortious interference.
- The defendants, 474431 Associates and Helmsley-Spear, Inc., as appellants, appealed the grant of the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'work made for hire' exclusion of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) prevent artists from receiving protection for a large-scale sculpture when they are paid a weekly salary, receive employee benefits, and can be assigned other tasks, despite having significant artistic freedom?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardamone, J.
Yes, the 'work made for hire' exclusion prevents the artists from receiving VARA protection because the artists' relationship with the hiring party was one of employment. To determine whether a work is 'made for hire,' courts must apply the multi-factor common law agency test established in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid. While some factors, such as the high level of skill required and the artists' complete artistic freedom, weighed in favor of independent contractor status, a greater number of factors indicated an employment relationship. These factors included the provision of employee benefits, the payment of payroll and social security taxes, the payment of a weekly salary, the long duration of the relationship, the hiring party's right to assign additional projects (which it exercised), and the artists' inability to hire paid assistants without approval. Because the balance of these factors demonstrates the artists were employees, the sculpture is a 'work made for hire' as a matter of law and is statutorily excluded from VARA's protection against destruction or modification.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'work made for hire' doctrine within the context of the Visual Artists Rights Act. It establishes that traditional indicia of employment, such as benefits and tax treatment, can outweigh artistic freedom when determining an artist's status. The decision highlights a significant conflict for artists, forcing them to potentially choose between the financial security of an employment relationship and the 'moral rights' protections afforded to independent contractors under VARA. Consequently, the structure of the artist-patron relationship, particularly the financial and administrative arrangements, is critical in determining whether a work of art receives federal protection from alteration or destruction.
Unlock the full brief for Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.