Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12207, 33 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1225, 861 F. Supp. 303 (1994)
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 protected from destruction or modification if it is a 'work of visual art' of 'recognized stature' and was not created as a 'work made for hire' by an employee.
Facts:
- Three professional artists, John Carter, John Swing, and John Veronis (collectively 'Jx3'), entered into a contract with Sig Management Company ('Sig'), the managing agent for a building's lessee.
- The contract was for the artists 'to design, create and install sculpture and other permanent installations' in the lobby of a commercial building in Queens, New York.
- The contract granted the artists 'full authority in design, color and style' and specified that they would own the copyright to the installations.
- Over several years, the artists created a vast, integrated work of art that covered the lobby's floors, walls, and ceiling, and included interactive elements, primarily using recycled materials.
- The artists were each paid $1,000 weekly; for a period, they received health and insurance benefits and had taxes withheld from their payments, for which they received W-2 forms.
- After the building's net lease was terminated, the new managing agent for the owner, Helmsley-Spear, Inc., took control of the property.
- Agents for Helmsley-Spear, Inc. ordered the artists to leave the premises and informed them that they intended to remove the artwork from the lobby.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs John Carter, John Swing, and John Veronis, Jr. filed suit against 474431 Associates and Helmsley-Spear, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Plaintiffs sought and were granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining defendants from altering the artwork and denying plaintiffs access to the property.
- Following a hearing, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending the final outcome of the case.
- The case proceeded to a trial on the merits before the district court judge, without a jury.
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 a large-scale, integrated sculptural installation created by independent contractors in a building lobby qualify as a 'work of visual art' of 'recognized stature' under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), such that the artists can obtain an injunction preventing the building owners from destroying or modifying it?
Opinions:
Majority - Edelstein, District Judge
Yes, the sculptural installation qualifies as a protected 'work of visual art' of 'recognized stature' under VARA, and the artists are entitled to an injunction preventing its destruction or modification. The court determined that the various elements of the installation constituted a single, integrated work of visual art, not unprotected 'applied art.' Crucially, the court found the work was not a 'work made for hire' because the artists were independent contractors, not employees. Applying the factors from Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, the court held that factors favoring independent contractor status—such as the high level of skill required, the artists' complete artistic control, the fact that creating art was not the hiring party's regular business, and the artists' retention of the copyright—far outweighed factors suggesting employment, like the method of payment and provision of benefits. Furthermore, based on extensive expert testimony from art critics and academics who described the work as meritorious and significant, the court concluded the work was of 'recognized stature.' The court also rejected the defendants' Fifth Amendment takings claim, finding VARA's protection is not a permanent physical occupation and serves a legitimate public interest. Therefore, the court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from removing, destroying, or altering the work for the duration of the artists' lives.
Analysis:
This case was a landmark decision as one of the first to interpret and apply the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. It established a strong precedent for protecting large-scale, site-specific installations, clarifying that such works are not automatically disqualified as 'applied art.' The court's detailed application of the 'work made for hire' test affirmed that artistic control and copyright ownership are highly significant factors, providing artists with a roadmap for preserving their status as independent contractors. The decision also set the standard for proving a work is of 'recognized stature,' demonstrating that expert testimony from the art community is critical and sufficient to meet this threshold, thereby solidifying the 'moral rights' of artists in the United States against the property rights of building owners.
