Opinion ID: 204153
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Right of Attribution

Text: VARA's right of attribution grants the author of a work of visual art the right, in part, (1) to claim authorship of that work; (2) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create; and (3) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation. 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(1),(2). The right ensures that artists are correctly identified with the works of art they create, and that they are not identified with works created by others. House Report at 6, as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6915. In addition, if a work of visual art has been distorted or modified (and, unlike the integrity right, the original distortion or modification need not be intentional), associating the author's name with the distorted work against his wishes would violate his right of attribution. The right of attribution under VARA thus gives an artist a claim for injunctive relief to, inter alia, assert or disclaim authorship of a work. Whether VARA entitles an artist to damages for violation of the right of attribution is a separate question. We find the answer in the difference between the statutory language on the right of integrity and the language on the right of attribution. Subsection (a)(3) of section 106A, which codifies the right of integrity, is further divided into two subsections: (A) confers the right to protect the work against intentional alterations that would be prejudicial to honor or reputation, and (B) confers the right to protect a work of recognized stature from destruction. [16] Although both subsections are framed as rights to prevent certain conduct, they both also contain an additional clause stating that the occurrence of that conduct is, at least in certain circumstances, a violation of th[e] right to prevent the conduct from happening. See 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(A) (any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right); id. at § 106(a)(3)(B) (any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right). No such violation clause is included in the sections codifying the right of attribution. See Nimmer, supra, at § 8D.06[B][1] (The statute does not make any provision to redress violation of any of the foregoing three attribution rights.). The legislative history sheds no light on this difference, but Nimmer speculates as follows: Perhaps the implication is that whereas an integrity violation could give rise to a monetary recovery, failure to attribute is remediable solely through injunction. If that conclusion were intended, Congress certainly could have expressed its intent less obliquely. Id. We agree with Nimmer's surmise that VARA does not provide a damages remedy for an attribution violation. Where the statutory language is framed as a right to prevent conduct, it does not necessarily follow that a plaintiff is entitled to damages once the conduct occurs. The question is whether doing the act the artist has a right to prevent also triggers a damages remedy, and the statutory language indicates that Congress answered that question for the attribution right differently from the integrity right. It is also noteworthy that Congress crafted a damages remedy for the destruction of a work of recognized stature that is narrower than the right to prevent destruction of such works. While an artist may prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, only an intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right. 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(B) (emphasis added). This narrowing further indicates that Congress did not intend a damages remedy to arise automatically from the right to prevent conduct. In failing to provide a damages remedy for any type of violation of the moral right of attribution, Congress may have concluded that artists could obtain adequate relief for the harms of false attribution by resorting to the Copyright Act and other traditional claims.