Martin v. City of Indianapolis
192 F.3d 608 (1999)
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 of 'recognized stature' if it is viewed as meritorious by art experts, the artistic community, or a cross-section of society. This standard can be met with evidence such as media coverage and letters from credible sources offered not for the truth of their content, but to show the work received public recognition.
Facts:
- Artist Jan Martin created a large stainless steel sculpture named 'Symphony #1'.
- In 1984, Martin, the City of Indianapolis, and the landowner entered into a Project Agreement permitting the sculpture's erection.
- The agreement stipulated that if the property was needed, the City must provide the owners with 90 days' written notice to remove the sculpture.
- The sculpture was designed and built to be disassembled for removal and reassembly.
- In 1992, the City acquired the land as part of an urban renewal project.
- Martin and his brother offered to donate the sculpture to the City if the City would pay to move it to a new location.
- Without providing the contractually required 90-day notice, the City hired a contractor who demolished 'Symphony #1'.
Procedural Posture:
- Jan Martin sued the City of Indianapolis in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging a violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA).
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Martin, finding the City had violated VARA and awarded Martin the maximum statutory damages for a non-wilful violation.
- The City of Indianapolis appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- Jan Martin cross-appealed, likely regarding the finding that the violation was not wilful.
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 destruction of a large outdoor sculpture, which had been the subject of newspaper articles and favorable letters from art professionals, constitute the destruction of a 'work of recognized stature' in violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Harlington Wood, Jr.
Yes, the destruction of the sculpture violated the Visual Artists Rights Act because it was a work of 'recognized stature.' To qualify for protection under VARA, an artist must show their work has 'recognized stature,' which means it is viewed as meritorious by art experts, the artistic community, or some cross-section of society. The court found that Martin met this burden by presenting newspaper articles and letters from art professionals praising the work. This evidence was admissible not to prove the opinions were true (which would be hearsay), but to demonstrate that the sculpture had garnered public recognition and attention from credible sources, thus establishing its stature.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Manion
No, summary judgment was not appropriate because Martin failed to sufficiently prove the sculpture was of 'recognized stature.' While the court's test for 'recognized stature' is correct, a plaintiff cannot meet this burden solely through old newspaper articles and unverified letters. Such evidence, admitted only to show recognition but not for the truth of its contents (i.e., that the art was good), is insufficient to prove the work had 'stature,' meaning a high level of quality. To survive a defendant's motion for summary judgment, let alone win their own, a plaintiff generally needs expert testimony to establish that the artwork possessed the requisite merit.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its interpretation of the undefined term 'recognized stature' within the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). The court's decision establishes that the standard can be met without live expert testimony, allowing evidence like newspaper articles and letters to suffice. This lowers the evidentiary bar for artists, particularly in cases where a work is destroyed before it can be formally appraised by experts. The ruling provides a practical path for artists to prove the cultural significance of their destroyed work and solidifies VARA's role in protecting public art from destruction.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. City of Indianapolis