Cheffins v. Stewart
825 F.3d 588 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An object constitutes 'applied art' exempt from protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) if it initially served a utilitarian function and continues to serve such a function after an artist has made embellishments or alterations to it.
Facts:
- Simon Cheffins and Gregory Jones acquired a used school bus and built a facade resembling a 16th-century Spanish galleon on it, naming the creation the 'La Contessa'.
- The La Contessa was featured at the Burning Man Festival in 2002, 2003, and 2005.
- At the festival, the La Contessa was driven around to provide rides to participants and was also used as a venue for weddings, musical performances, and other shows.
- After the festivals, Cheffins and Jones stored the La Contessa on land held in a life estate by Joan Grant.
- In late 2005, Grant abandoned her life estate after her home burned down, and Michael Stewart took possession of the property.
- Cheffins and Jones did not move the La Contessa from the property.
- In December 2006, Stewart intentionally burned the wooden galleon structure off the bus so that a scrap metal dealer could remove the underlying vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Simon Cheffins and Gregory Jones filed suit against Michael Stewart in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) and common law conversion.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment to Stewart on the VARA claim, ruling that the La Contessa was 'applied art' and not protected by the statute.
- The conversion claim proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Stewart.
- The trial court subsequently awarded attorneys' fees to Stewart.
- Cheffins and Jones, as appellants, appealed the summary judgment ruling and other trial court decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 a used school bus transformed into an artistic mobile replica of a 16th-century Spanish galleon, which continues to be used for transportation and as a performance venue, constitute 'applied art' exempt from protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA)?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Scannlain, J.
Yes. An object is considered 'applied art' and is not protected by VARA if it began as a utilitarian object and continued to serve a significant utilitarian function after being artistically modified. The court established a two-part test focusing on utility: an object is applied art if it 1) initially served a utilitarian function, and 2) continues to serve such a function after artistic embellishment. The La Contessa originated as a school bus, a utilitarian vehicle. Even after its transformation, it was used for transportation and as a mobile venue at Burning Man, thus retaining a significant practical function. By analyzing the statutory text of the Copyright Act, the court noted that 'applied art' is listed alongside other utilitarian items like maps and globes (noscitur a sociis), reinforcing the focus on practical use rather than artistic merit. Therefore, the La Contessa is 'applied art' and falls outside VARA's protection.
Concurring - McKeown, J.
Yes. While agreeing that the La Contessa is applied art, the majority's test is overly simplistic and could improperly exclude works of fine art that incorporate functional elements. A more nuanced test should ask whether the work's primary purpose, as viewed by a reasonable observer, is utilitarian, with any aesthetic elements being subservient to that function. Many historical and modern artworks, from tapestries to sculptures designed as part of a building, retain some utility but are primarily works of art. Under this 'primary purpose' test, the La Contessa is still applied art because its use as a performance venue and vehicle for transportation was its primary function, and its artistic appearance was subservient to these uses. This approach better effectuates VARA's purpose while still reaching the correct conclusion in this case.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, function-based test for defining 'applied art' under VARA in the Ninth Circuit, directing courts to focus on an object's continuing utility rather than its artistic qualities or the artist's intent. This 'continued utility' standard provides a more objective framework than the 'primary purpose' test suggested by the concurrence, potentially simplifying future analyses but also narrowing VARA's protections for functional or repurposed art. The case sets a significant precedent for artists who create works from utilitarian objects, clarifying that if the object's practical function is retained, it will likely be excluded from VARA's moral rights protections against destruction or modification.
