If it Ain’t Broke?…Ninth Circuit Announces Curious Test of “Applied Art” Under VARA

by Sullivan & Worcester

The Ninth Circuit has ruled against two artists in a long-running dispute about a hybrid school bus creation at Burning Man more than ten years ago, a “galleon” named La Contessa. In announcing a test that focuses on whether the object is “utilitarian” to warrant protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, 17 U.S.C. § 106A (“VARA”), the Court of Appeals has added an element that the statute does not contain. Namely, any artist that incorporates an object that once had an independent function must essentially ensure that the object does not work any more. Otherwise, the potential that it could resume its former function eliminates legal protection. So school bus with a Spanish galleon on top is “applied art” and ineligible for VARA protection, while a school bus attached to a wall is “a work of visual art.” It is a test that appears ripe for problems in the application. What is it about VARA that so bedevils interpretation? As we have often lamented, VARA guidance is somewhat rare, and often muddled. From here, this latest result is a continuation in that trend, particularly because it starts off by confusing the rights of attribution and integrity, which are different rights with different remedies.

La Contessa was a work created at the Burning Man festival in Nevada in 2002. It consisted of a school bus with a façade erected on top to make the entire work look like a 16th century Spanish galleon. It was created by Simon Cheffins and Gregory Jones. Altogether La Contessa was approximately sixty feet wide and sixteen feet long, and its mast was more than fifty feet tall. It appeared at Burning Man in 2002, 2003, and 2005. When the 2005 festival ended, Cheffins and Jones made an arrangement with a landowner to store La Contessa. That property was held by someone with a life estate, however (an interest lasting only for her life). When she died, Michael Stewart took possession of the land. At some point in December 2006 Stewart destroyed the wood galleon structure to dispose of the school bus with a scrap metal dealer.

Cheffins and Jones sued Stewart for conversion (unlawful control of moveable property) and a violation of the right of integrity under VARA. The U.S. District Court in Nevada granted summary judgment on the VARA claim, and a jury trial was held on the conversion claim, in which Stewart prevailed. Cheffins and Jones appealed, and the Ninth Circuit considered the summary judgment ruling under VARA, which it affirmed.

Cheffins and Jones asserted VARA’s right of integrity, which gives the artist influence over the physical integrity of the work—not just the right to copy it—even after the legal title is vested in someone else. The Ninth Circuit, interestingly, proceeded directly to whether La Contessa was a “work of visual art” entitled to VARA protection, rather than review whether it was a “work of recognized stature,” the requirement to invoke the right of integrity. Instead, it addressed the right to avoid distortion or mutilation “prejudicial to [the artist’s] honor or reputation.” But that is the right of attribution. Not a strong start, analytically.

In any event, a “work of visual art” is defined as:

(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or

The Copyright Act also defines, interestingly, what a work of visual art does not include (emphasis added):

(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;

This is not, interestingly enough, the first case to consider whether a school bus is “applied art.” In Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995), the Second Circuit held that portions of a bus affixed to a wall were not “applied art.” The Second Circuit in 2003 revisited the issue, considering the interplay between utilitarian objects. It held: “VARA may protect a sculpture that looks like a piece of furniture, whether or not it could arguable be called a sculpture,” but held in that case that a painted banner did not qualify for VARA protection. Pollara v. Seymour, 344 F.3d 265, 269 (2d Cir. 2003).

With this precedent in mind, the Ninth Circuit concluded that “our inquiry should be on whether the object in question originally was—and continues to be—utilitarian in nature.” The court supported this conclusion with the definition of “applied art” in Section 101 of the Copyright Act that lists various examples that all have “utilitarian functions,” as the court put it. It thus announced the following test:

We therefore hold that an object constitutes a piece of “applied art”—as opposed to a “work of visual art”—where the object initially served a utilitarian function and the object continues to serve such a function after the artist made embellishments or alterations to it. This test embraces the circumstances both where a functional object incorporates a decorative design in its initial formulation, and where a functional object is decorated after manufacture but continues to serve a practical purpose. Conversely, “applied art” would not include a piece of art whose function is purely aesthetic or a utilitarian object which is so transformed through the addition of artistic elements that its utilitarian functions cease.

Applying this test, the Ninth Circuit held that La Contessa “began as a school bus,” which continued to transport passengers of the “galleon” throughout its later iteration. “It began as a rudimentary utilitarian object, and despite being visually transformed through elaborate industry, it continued to serve a significant utilitarian function upon its completion.” A separate concurrence by Judge McKeown agreed with the result of this case, but was troubled by the breadth of the test that was announced. Judge McKeown felt that “a more nuanced definition of ‘applied art’” was necessary.

This decision is hard to endorse. The motor vehicle in question ceased to be a school bus before it became La Contessa—and it never again became a school bus. The test announced by the Ninth Circuit effectively means that an artist incorporates a onetime “utilitarian object” (a Duchamp urinal, perhaps?), the artist must permanently disable the utilitarian ability. That is the only way to square the disparate school bus component holdings in this case vs. Carter. It is a meaningless distinction legally and artistically. Citing my favorite recurring personal example David Hammonds’s 1993 Rock Fan at Williams College, would Hammonds have to establish that the fans could not be used again if separated from the rock? Nothing about the statute implies that such a showing should be necessary, but under the Ninth Circuit test it might. It is an odd set of requirements to impose on contemporary art.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sullivan & Worcester | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Sullivan & Worcester

Sullivan & Worcester on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.