Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48943698/13/PRACTICES-%C2%A7-503-02-a-b-1984-2-PATRY-%C2%A7-4-17-2010-And
Timestamp: 2014-09-19 01:47:26
Document Index: 759594893

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 503', '§ 4', '§ 106', '§ 8', '§ 16', '§ 106', '§ 106', '§ 503', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 106', '§ 106']

PRACTICES § 503.02(a)-(b) (1984); 2 PATRY § 4:17 (2010). And for Chapman Kelly v Chicago Park District
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Save to My LibraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks6Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of ContentsKelley named the project “Chicago Wildflower Works I.”Chapter of the American Society of Landscape ArtistsU.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(A). He also alleged breach of contract;F.3d at 81 (describing moral rights as “rights of a(7th Cir. 1997) (“[I]t was accepted wisdom [beforeVARA] that the United States did not enforce any claimNIMMER § 8D.02[D][1] (2009); 5 PATRY § 16:3. This wasVARA amended the Copyright Act and provides a17 U.S.C. § 106A(a) (emphasis added). At issue here issubsection (a)(3)(A)17 U.S.C. § 106A(c) (emphasis added). The second ofThis is an astonishing omission. VARA’s definition ofPRACTICES § 503.02(a)-(b) (1984); 2 PATRY § 4:17 (2010). AndF.2d 931, 939 (7th Cir. 1989); 2 PATRY § 4:17 (Geometric1 NIMMER § 2.03[B]. A work is “fixed” in a tangiblePlensa that sits nearby in Chicago’s Millenium Park. The70 ILL. COMP. STAT. 1205/4-6 (emphasis added). When0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Chapman Kelly v Chicago Park DistrictChapman Kelly v Chicago Park DistrictRatings: (0)|Views: 1,754
|Likes: 5Published by Ray DowdSeventh Circuit court of appeals decides an interesting case on the copyrightability of a garden created by a fine artist. Copyright law and moral rights are implicated.Seventh Circuit court of appeals decides an interesting case on the copyrightability of a garden created by a fine artist. Copyright law and moral rights are implicated.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Ray Dowd on Feb 16, 2011Copyright: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 lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/48943698/Chapman-Kelly-v-Chicago-Park-District11/15/2011pdftextoriginal In the
Nos. 08-3701 & 08-3712C
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,v.
Appeals from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.No. 1:04-cv-07715
— David H. Coar
. Chapman Kelley is a nationallyrecognized artist known for his representationalpaintings of landscapes and flowers
— in particular, ro-mantic floral and woodland interpretations set withinellipses. In 1984 he received permission from the
2Nos. 08-3701 & 08-3712Chicago Park District to install an ambitious wildflowerdisplay at the north end of Grant Park, a prominentpublic space in the heart of downtown Chicago. “Wild-flower Works” was thereafter planted: two enormouselliptical flower beds, each nearly as big as a footballfield, featuring a variety of native wildflowers andedged with borders of gravel and steel.Promoted as “living art,” Wildflower Works receivedcritical and popular acclaim, and for a while Kelley anda group of volunteers tended the vast garden, pruningand replanting as needed. But by 2004 WildflowerWorks had deteriorated, and the City’s goals for GrantPark had changed. So the Park District dramaticallymodified the garden, substantially reducing its size,reconfiguring the oval flower beds into rectangles, andchanging some of the planting material.Kelley sued the Park District for violating his “right ofintegrity” under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990(“VARA”), 17 U.S.C. § 106A, and also for breach of con-tract. The contract claim is insubstantial; the main eventhere is the VARA claim, which is novel and tests the boundaries of copyright law. Congress enacted thisstatute to comply with the nation’s obligations underthe Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary andArtistic Works. VARA amended the Copyright Act,importing a limited version of the civil-law conceptof the “moral rights of the artist” into our intellectual-property law. In brief, for certain types of visual art
— paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and exhibi-tion photographs
— VARA confers upon the artist certain
Nos. 08-3701 & 08-37123rights of attribution and integrity. The latter include theright of the artist to prevent, during his lifetime, anydistortion or modification of his work that would be“prejudicial to his . . . honor or reputation,” and torecover for any such intentional distortion or modifica-tion undertaken without his consent.
17 U.S.C.§ 106A(a)(3)(A).The district court held a bench trial and entered asplit judgment. The court rejected Kelley’s moral-rightsclaim for two reasons. First, the judge held thatalthough Wildflower Works could be classified as botha painting and a sculpture and therefore a work of visualart under VARA, it lacked sufficient originality to beeligible for copyright, a foundational requirement inthe statute. Second, following the First Circuit’s deci-sion in
Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc.
459 F.3d 128(1st Cir. 2006), the court concluded that site-specific artlike Wildflower Works is categorically excluded fromprotection under VARA. The court then held for Kelleyon the contract claim, but found his evidence of damagesuncertain and entered a nominal award of $1. Bothsides appealed.We affirm in part and reverse in part. There is reasonto doubt several of the district court’s conclusions: thatWildflower Works is a painting or sculpture; that itflunks the test for originality; and that
site-specific artis excluded from VARA. But the court was right toreject this claim; for reasons relating to copyright’s re-quirements of expressive authorship and fixation, aliving garden like Wildflower Works is not copy-rightable. The district court’s treatment of the contract
Activity (6)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 thousand reads1 hundred readskatrinar412 liked thisprofanejustice liked thisaulancaliu liked thisLoad more
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Segundo Suenos LLC v Jones
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Fox Broadcasting Co Inc v Dish Network LLC
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Hobbs v John
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Jaso_v_Coca_Cola_Co
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Federal Civil Practice CLE Program SDNY - May 5
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Women in the Law: Power and Progress July 2014 Conference...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Cooper v. NCS Pearson, Inc. Opinion
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Brief of Amici Curiae
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library In re Flamenbaum Brief of Amici Curiae
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library 5th International Conference on Looted Art in the Czech R...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Universal Furniture Internaitonal, Inc. v. Frankel
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, Et Al.
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Tolliver v. McCants
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Tattoo Art Incorporated v. Tat International LLC
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Russian Entertainment Wholesale, Inc. v. Close-Up Interna...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Scholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLC
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Gary Friedrich Enterprises LLC v. Marvel Characters, Inc.
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Cariou v. Prince
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Authors Guild, Inc., Et Al. v. Google, Inc.
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library 6- SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Ochre LLC v. Rockwell Architecture, Planning and Design, ...