Martin v. City of Indianapolis
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17073, 982 F.Supp. 625, 1997 WL 675182 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) protects from intentional destruction a work of visual art that has achieved "recognized stature." A work achieves recognized stature if art experts, the art community, or a cross-section of society views it as meritorious.
Facts:
- Jan Randolph Martin, a professional artist, designed and built a large stainless steel sculpture titled 'Symphony #1.'
- In 1984, Martin entered into a Project Agreement with the City of Indianapolis to erect the sculpture on land owned by John Lafollette, the chairman of Martin's employer.
- This agreement stipulated that if the City needed the land, Martin would remove the sculpture at his own cost after receiving 90 days' written notice.
- Martin constructed the sculpture over 2.5 years, working on weekends and holidays, not during his regular employment hours.
- In 1992, the City notified Lafollette of its intent to acquire the land for an Urban Renewal Development Plan.
- Martin offered to donate the sculpture to the City if it would cover the costs of removal and reinstallation, but no agreement was reached.
- The City acquired the property in 1993.
- On or about July 20, 1995, the City, without providing the 90-day written notice to Martin, hired a demolition contractor who destroyed 'Symphony #1.'
Procedural Posture:
- Jan Randolph Martin filed suit against the City of Indianapolis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
- Martin alleged a violation of his rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) for the destruction of his sculpture.
- Martin filed a motion for summary judgment on his claim.
- The City of Indianapolis filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting four affirmative defenses.
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 city's intentional destruction of an artist's outdoor sculpture, after acquiring the land on which it is located, violate the artist's rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Barker, Chief Judge
Yes, a city's intentional destruction of an artist's sculpture of recognized stature violates the artist's rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA). The court found that 'Symphony #1' was a work of recognized stature, was not excluded from VARA protection as advertising or a work made for hire, and the artist did not waive his rights. The court applied a two-part test for recognized stature, requiring a showing that the work is meritorious and that this stature is recognized by art experts or the community. Martin met this burden with evidence of awards, favorable reviews by art critics, and inclusion in art publications. The court rejected the City's affirmative defenses, finding that the sculpture was not 'advertising' merely because it appeared in a company brochure, nor was it a 'work made for hire' because it was not the kind of work Martin was employed to perform, was not created during work hours, and was not actuated by a purpose to serve his employer. Finally, the court held that the 1984 Project Agreement did not constitute a waiver of Martin's VARA rights because it only contemplated the sculpture's removal, not its destruction, and the City failed to meet the condition precedent of providing 90 days' written notice for removal.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational application of the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), providing critical judicial interpretation of the term 'work of recognized stature.' The decision establishes a test for this standard, confirming that protection is not limited to works by world-famous artists but extends to art recognized as meritorious by the relevant community or experts. It also narrowly construes VARA's exceptions, such as 'work made for hire' and 'advertising,' solidifying artists' moral rights against claims that any commercial connection strips a work of protection. The ruling underscores that any waiver of VARA rights must be explicit, specific, and strictly construed, setting a high bar for property owners seeking to destroy works of art.
