Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Foundation, Inc. v. Büchel

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
593 F.3d 38 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) applies to unfinished works of visual art that are "fixed in any tangible medium of expression." An artist has a viable claim for a violation of the right of integrity if a commissioning party intentionally modifies the unfinished work in a manner contrary to the artist's instructions and prejudicial to the artist's honor or reputation.

Facts:

Artist Christoph Büchel conceived of a large-scale installation titled “Training Ground for Democracy” to be exhibited at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (MASS MoCA).
The parties never executed a formal written agreement defining the terms of their relationship, project scope, or intellectual property rights, including any waiver of VARA rights.
During the initial construction phase, which Büchel largely directed remotely, conflicts arose over budget and the museum's implementation of his instructions, with museum staff sometimes making decisions in Büchel's stead.
In December 2006, Büchel left the site for the holidays with the installation approximately 40% complete.
Due to escalating artistic and financial disagreements, Büchel informed MASS MoCA in January 2007 that he would not return to complete the work unless specific conditions were met.
In Büchel’s absence, MASS MoCA staff continued to work on the installation, with evidence suggesting they made significant aesthetic and design choices contrary to Büchel's express instructions.
After canceling the planned exhibition, MASS MoCA required visitors to pass through the gallery housing the unfinished installation to see another exhibit.
The museum partially covered the installation with yellow tarpaulins, but key elements remained visible to the public, including journalists and other art professionals.

Procedural Posture:

Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (MASS MoCA) filed a suit for declaratory relief against artist Christoph Büchel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Büchel asserted counterclaims against MASS MoCA for violations of the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) and the Copyright Act, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of MASS MoCA on all claims and denied Büchel's motion.
Büchel, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; MASS MoCA is the appellee.

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 Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) apply to an unfinished art installation, and if so, does a museum violate the artist's right of integrity by continuing work on the installation against the artist's instructions and then publicly displaying the modified, unfinished work?

Opinions:

Majority - Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Yes, VARA applies to unfinished works, and yes, the museum may have violated the artist's right of integrity. The Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) protects works of art that are 'fixed' in a tangible medium, which includes unfinished works where a portion has been fixed. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether MASS MoCA intentionally modified Büchel’s installation against his express instructions and whether those modifications were prejudicial to his honor or reputation. The court reasoned that VARA is part of the Copyright Act, which explicitly states that a work is 'created' when fixed, and 'the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time.' Büchel provided sufficient evidence, including emails and testimony, that museum staff knowingly disregarded his instructions and made their own aesthetic choices, potentially distorting his artistic vision. Further, negative reviews and commentary provided evidence from which a jury could find that these modifications harmed his professional reputation. However, the court rejected the claims that merely covering the work with tarpaulins or displaying it in an unfinished state constituted a violation of the right of integrity, as VARA does not include a right of disclosure.

Analysis:

This decision establishes the important precedent that VARA's moral rights protections extend to unfinished works of art, affording artists control over their creations even when a project is abandoned mid-completion. The ruling clarifies that an artist's right of integrity can be violated by unauthorized modifications made by a collaborating institution, shifting risk onto museums and galleries that proceed with construction without the artist's ongoing approval. This case serves as a significant cautionary tale for art institutions, strongly signaling the need for comprehensive written agreements and explicit VARA waivers when commissioning complex, large-scale works to avoid liability for claims of distortion or modification.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Foundation, Inc. v. Büchel (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"