Scott v. Dixon
309 F.Supp.2d 395, 70 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1948, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5021 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a work of art to be protected from destruction under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), the artist must prove not only its artistic merit but also that its stature has been recognized by the art community or the general public; recognition of an artist's other works does not automatically confer this status.
Facts:
- Linda Scott, an artist known for a public sculpture named 'Stargazer Deer,' was acquainted with Peter and Candida Dixon.
- In 1991, the Dixons commissioned Scott to create a large steel sculpture of a swan for the private backyard of their 'Swan's Way' property.
- The sculpture was installed in 1992 and remained in the backyard, which was surrounded by twelve-foot hedges, making it not clearly visible to the public.
- In 1999, Peter Dixon contracted to sell the property, with a rider requiring him to remove the swan sculpture before the closing.
- The Dixons hired a company to dismantle the sculpture and store it at an outdoor facility.
- While in storage, the sculpture was left uncovered, causing it to rust, corrode, and buckle to a point where it could not be restored to its original condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Linda Scott filed a lawsuit against Defendants Peter and Candida Dixon in the United States District Court, a federal trial court.
- Scott sought damages under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), alleging the Dixons destroyed her work of art.
- A non-jury trial was held before the District Judge.
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, custom-commissioned sculpture, which has never been publicly exhibited or reviewed by the artistic community, qualify as a 'work of recognized stature' under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), thereby protecting it from destruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Wexler, District Judge
No. A sculpture that has never been publicly exhibited or reviewed by the artistic community does not qualify as a 'work of recognized stature' under the Visual Artists Rights Act. To prevail on a VARA claim for destruction of a work, an artist must prove two elements: (1) that the work is one of 'recognized stature,' and (2) that its destruction was intentional or grossly negligent. The court determined that 'recognized stature' requires a showing of both artistic merit and recognition of that merit by the art community or the public, typically established through expert testimony or evidence of public acclaim. Here, Scott failed to present evidence that the swan sculpture itself had achieved any recognition, as it was situated on private property and had never been exhibited or reviewed. The court rejected the argument that the notoriety of Scott's other work, 'Stargazer Deer,' could be imputed to the sculpture, stating that the specific work in question must have acquired the requisite stature. Citing precedent, the court concluded that a work never exhibited cannot, as a matter of law, be a work of recognized stature, and therefore, it was not protected by VARA.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'recognized stature' requirement under VARA, establishing it as a high bar for artists seeking to protect their work from destruction. The court's holding makes clear that an artist's general reputation is insufficient; the specific work at issue must have achieved public or critical recognition on its own merits. This precedent makes it more difficult for artists to protect works created for private commissions that are shielded from public view, as they may lack the exhibition history or critical reviews necessary to prove 'recognized stature'. Future VARA litigants will need to present concrete evidence, such as expert testimony, media coverage, or exhibition records, specific to the artwork in question.
