Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27801072/36/section-a-3-A-%E2%80%93-stating-that-any-intentional-distortion
Timestamp: 2015-10-09 21:05:05
Document Index: 707497453

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 506', '§1990', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 8', '§ 16', '§ 106']

section (a)(3)(A) – stating that "any intentional distortion, for Mass Museum v. Buchel
Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks3Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of ContentsON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSVARA claims – that MASS MoCA violated his right of artisticVARA applies to unfinished works but instead must decide itsBüchel asserts a viable claim under the Copyright Act that MASSMoCA violated his exclusive right to display his work publiclyShow Will Go On"). One critic has stated that "Mr. Büchel'sDirector Joseph Thompson indicated in a letter to Büchel's galleryIt was to adopt the role-play of U.S. militaryMoCA and the artist involved Büchel's dissatisfaction with the wayMASS MoCA during the construction process." Id. These majorId. The Museum had begun seeking out some of these materials andPresentation of Training Ground for Democracy Cancelled; NewId. The Museum represented that "[r]easonable steps [had] beenStates District Court for the District of Massachusetts. TheVARA. The Museum sought a declaration that it was "entitled toCopyright Act based on alleged violations of Büchel's right toVARA claim. The court stated that it would "in the coming weeks"Plaintiff MASS MoCA to allow patrons to walk565 F. Supp. 2d at 248-29. The court therefore granted MASS MoCA'sU.S.C.C.A.N. at 6921 (emphasis added). The Second Circuit inCarter similarly considered VARA's application to a "very largesection 106A(a)."6915). Although an artist may not transfer his VARA rights (as71 F.3d at 83 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 506); see also 17 U.S.C. §1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6915). Before discussing the precise contours"unfinished art may not be covered by VARA at all." Id. at 258;VARA's two explicitly recognized rights must be demonstrated withTitle 17. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. That general definitional section17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). A work is "fixed" when it hasAt least one circuit has previously assumed VARA's applicability toVARA's legislative history. We nonetheless note that we haveBüchel: Construing Artists' Rights in the Context of InstitutionalF.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2004) ("Cross motions simply require us to1. The Right of Integritysection (a)(3)(A) – stating that "any intentional distortion,Copyright § 8D.06[C][1] (noting that "an intentional andReport also notes that the rights provided by VARA are "analogousBerne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works2. The Right of AttributionSection 106A(a)(3) states that the author of a work ofId. We agree with Nimmer's surmise that VARA does not provide aMuseum prevented the further use of Büchel's name in connectionBüchel's right of integrity was not implicated by MASS MoCA'sMoCA's actions caused prejudice to Büchel's honor or reputation1. Continuing Work on "Training Ground"260. The court found that these "[f]umbled efforts to assist inMuseum personnel were attempting to carry out Büchel's vision basedBüchel. The evidence we have described would permit a jury to find2007 that a curator at the New Museum in New York had just viewedBüchel's honor or reputation. An article in the Boston GlobeThe New York Times noted that the exhibition would "certainly give"Crap Under Wrap" – concluded that it would be a "huge mistake" toMuseum’s assertion that to find a violation of Büchel's right of2. Showing "Training Ground" Covered with Tarpaulins"Training Ground for Democracy." See MASS MoCA has Mishandled3. Exhibiting "Training Ground" in Its Unfinished State(2006) "([T]he VARA ignores the rights of disclosure and withdrawal(footnotes omitted)); 5 Patry on Copyright § 16:23 (noting thatVARA does not give the artist "a right to prohibit display of4. Summary of VARA ClaimsMuseum's repeated public exhibitions of "Training Ground forCopyright Act." Id. at 260. This statement reflects a misreadingBüchel had the right to "sell all or part of it." The Museum'ssection 109(c), which provides that "the owner of a particular copy"Training Ground for Democracy."U.S.C. § 106(2). A derivative work is defined as one "based uponMoCA created unauthorized derivative works based on theBüchel's instructions when working on "Training Ground" in hisBüchel’s vision rather than exercising its own artistic judgment toCopyright Act's originality requirement. The law applicable toAuthors' and Artists' Moral Rights: A Comparative Legal andsection 106(5) of the Copyright Act to display his work publicly;MASS MoCA violated his exclusive right under section 106(2) toBüchel’s remaining right-of-integrity claim under VARA and his0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}{[ } ]}
P. 1Mass Museum v. BuchelMass Museum v. BuchelRatings: (0)|Views: 725|Likes: 1Published by gesmerMore info:Published by: gesmer on Mar 04, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/27801072/Mass-Museum-v-Buchel10/24/2011pdftextoriginal Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 thousand reads1 hundred readsmademoisellewynne liked thisLoad more
More From This UserMIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)gesmerMIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)Sylvania and Vertical Restraints on DistributiongesmerSylvania and Vertical Restraints on DistributionA Short Legal Guide to Auditing Your Web SitegesmerA Short Legal Guide to Auditing Your Web SiteImplication of Lotus v. Borland, Lawyers Weekly, 1995gesmerImplication of Lotus v. Borland, Lawyers Weekly, 1995Gesmer Updegrove Client Advisory - Blizzard v. JunggesmerGesmer Updegrove Client Advisory - Blizzard v. JungOracle v. Google: Are APIs Copyrightable?gesmerOracle v. GoogleMassachusetts Tech Tax RepealedgesmerMassachusetts Tech Tax RepealedApplying Copyright Law to New Technologies Continues to Prove ChallenginggesmerApplying Copyright Law to New Technologies Continues to Prove ChallengingApplying Copyright Law to New Technologies Still Challenging - 9-9-13 Lawyers Weekly ArticlegesmerApplying Copyright Law to New Technologies Still Challenging - 9-9-13 Lawyers Weekly ArticleUsing the CDA and the DMCA to Limit LiabilitygesmerUsing the CDA and the DMCA to Limit LiabilityNew Law Applies Mass Sales and Us
Tax to Software-Related Services v. 2gesmerNew Law Applies Mass Sales and Us
Tax to Software-Related Services v. 2Gesmer Updegrove LLP Alert: New Law Applies Mass Sales and UsegesmerGesmer Updegrove LLP AlertGoogle Reply Brief (Oracle)gesmerGoogle Reply Brief (Oracle)1-800 Contacts v. Lens.comgesmer1-800 Contacts v. Lens.comOracle Response and Reply BriefgesmerOracle Response and Reply BriefOracle Opening BriefgesmerOracle Opening BriefMicrosoft-EMC Amicus BriefgesmerMicrosoft-EMC Amicus BriefGoogle Appeal Brief (Oracle)gesmerGoogle Appeal Brief (Oracle)Communications Industry Amicus- Oracle v GooglegesmerCommunications Industry Amicus- Oracle v GoogleU.S. v. Apple; SDNY decision July 2013gesmerU.S. v. Apple; SDNY decision July 2013Supreme Court Decisions Change Legal Landscape for EmployersgesmerSupreme Court Decisions Change Legal Landscape for EmployersConvolve v. Compaq ComputergesmerConvolve v. Compaq ComputerSignazon v. Nicholson (Long Arm Jurisdiction, D. Mass. 2013)gesmerSignazon v. Nicholson (Long Arm Jurisdiction, D. Mass. 2013)AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)gesmerAMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)Intepros v. Athy (Mass. Noncompete 2013)gesmerIntepros v. Athy (Mass. Noncompete 2013)
RecommendedMass MoCA's Brief in Opposition to Büchel's Motion for Summary JudgmentjoegratzIn Mass MoCA v. Büchel, No. 3:07-cv-30089-MAP (D. Mass.). Downloaded from PACER.Mass Museum v. BuchelgesmerBuchel Briefbromirskifiled 3/2009MassMOCA v Buechel District Court OpinionpropertyintangibleSimilar to 1st Cir Mass MOCA v. Christopher Buchel 08-2199P-01AMass MoCA's Brief in Opposition to Büchel's Motion for Summary JudgmentjoegratzMass MoCA's Brief in Opposition to Büchel's Motion for Summary JudgmentMass Museum v. BuchelgesmerMass Museum v. BuchelBuchel BriefbromirskiBuchel BriefMassMOCA v Buechel District Court OpinionpropertyintangibleMassMOCA v Buechel District Court Opinion