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

Heading: Büchel's VARA Claims

Text: With this legal framework in mind, we turn to the record before the district court. By dismantling Training Ground, the Museum prevented the further use of Büchel's name in connection with the work, eliminating any basis for injunctive relief, and we therefore do not address the attribution claim in our VARA analysis. We thus consider the evidence in the light most favorable to Büchel in determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the alleged violations of his right of integrity. As noted above, the district court concluded that Büchel's right of integrity was not implicated by MASS MoCA's conduct. The court found that nothing in MASS MoCA's planned display of the unfinished installation would have violated Büchel's right of integrity, for the simple reason that no completed work of art ever existed on these facts for the museum to distort, mutilate or modify. 56 F.Supp.2d at 260. Although the court stated that it would assume that VARA applied to unfinished works, its analysis appears to be influenced by a more limited view of the statute's scope. The court stated that [t]o suggest that the display of an unfinished and abandoned work somehow constitutes a distortion, mutilation, or modification of that non-existent work is simply inconsistent with the ordinary usage of those terms. Id. Having concluded that VARA applies with full force to unfinished works, however, we cannot accept the district court's reliance on the unfinished state of Training Ground to minimize the rights of its creator. It cannot be disputed that, at least by the time Büchel left North Adams in December 2006, Training Ground was fixed within the meaning of the Copyright Acti.e., materials had been placed in Building 5 by or under the authority of the author in a sufficiently permanent or stable manner to allow the work to be communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The elements of the installation had been chosen by Büchel, and his assistants and the Museum workers had put numerous components of the project in place under his direct supervision. Although far from complete, the work by the end of 2006 included parts of the Saddam Compound and the cinema, and Büchel and his assistants had begun detailing several of the containers intended to house elements such as a jail, museum and voting booths. With this substantial work in place, the sculpture had an established presence in Building 5. Büchel thus had rights in the work that were protected under VARA, notwithstanding its unfinished state. Büchel alleges that MASS MoCA violated his right to integrity in three distinct ways: first, by continuing to work on the installation without his authorization, particularly in early 2007, and by then exhibiting the distorted artwork to the public; second, by using tarpaulins to partially cover[]and thus modify and distort the installation, and allowing Museum visitors to see it in that condition; and third, merely by showing Büchel's work in its unfinished state, which he claims was a distortion. Büchel asserts that these actions caused prejudice to his honor or reputation. As we shall explain, we conclude that summary judgment was improperly granted to MASS MoCA because material disputes of fact exist concerning the first of Büchel's integrity claimsi.e., that MASS MoCA modified Training Ground over his objections, to his detriment. We further conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that MASS MoCA's actions caused prejudice to Büchel's honor or reputation. The other integrity claims, however, are unavailing.
Büchel asserts that, in the months following his departure from North Adams in December 2006, the Museum encroached on his artistic vision by making modifications to the installation that in some instances were directly contrary to his instructions. In rejecting Büchel's VARA claims, the district court described the Museum's actions as perhaps occasionally misguided attempts to implement Büchel's long-distance instructions. 565 F.Supp.2d at 260. The court found that these [f]umbled efforts to assist in creating, or failing to create, a work of art are not equivalent to distortion, modification, or mutilation of the art. Id. at 260-61. Although a jury might agree with the court's assessment, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Büchel would allow a finding that at least some of the Museum's actions violated VARA. The record permits the inference that, even during his time as an artist-in-residence at MASS MoCA, Museum staff members were disregarding his instructions and intentionally modifying Training Ground in a manner that he did not approve. For example, on December 14, 2006, just before he left for the holidays, Büchel complained to Thompson that in many cases people just do stuff without checking back if its ok to do s[omething], when they think by themselves the plan has to be changed. Büchel expressed further concerns in an email to Thompson later that month: I don't [k]now if this is really a great opportunity when you get an invitation to do a show, where you have to make constantly tons of compromises, where you have to fight constantly against stubborn[n]ess as well [as] against the institution and work with people that think they know my art better than I do as well [as] try to sabotage the project.... In early 2007, when he was no longer on-site, Büchel again accused the Museum of sabotage acts and, in a January 16 letter, issued an ultimatum: he would return to North Adams to complete Training Ground only if the Museum assented to a number of specific conditions. Aside from certain budgetary concerns irrelevant here, Büchel included the following among his list of demands: There is NO negotiation about the scope of the project. There are no elements to be eliminated as you propose and I don't accept any orders and any more pressure or compromises how things have to be done, neither from you or your crew.... I will not give you any permission to show an unfinished project nor will I show nor let you show any work in progress, as you proposed already earlier. I will not accept without consequences any additional sabotage acts, as done to artworks of mine and as well done to the installation in progress[.] The letter also identified several points of disagreement with the Museum concerning the content of the project, including Büchel's insistence that there be no transport street through the exhibition and that he did not need to be told if an airplane fuselage section fits in the show or not. I don't negotiate constantly my art with you or Nato.... Accusing the Museum director of showing little respect towards [his] plans, he told Thompson please don't tell me all the time how I have to do my project regarding its scope and it's [sic] methods that needs [sic] to be applied. Unsatisfied with the Museum's response to his list of demands, Büchel wrote to Thompson again on January 27, 2007. He warned that, based on the information he had been provided, there [was] a lot of stuff not being done according to my instructions. Again, he noted several elements of the work that had been installed against his wishes. [17] Thompson and Büchel traded emails during the first few days of February, with Büchel stating that he would not negotiate further this matter... because almost any of the main conditions are simply not fulfilled and Thompson writing that he believed the Museum had responded to [Büchel's] main issues. After that, direct communication between Büchel and the Museum became sparse. It was during this time, Büchel alleges, that the Museum developed a Plan B [18] to be implemented in the eventwhich was looking increasingly likelythat he did not return to finish the exhibit. Plan B, which involved publicly exhibiting the unfinished installation without the artist's permission, called for completing various elements of the installation in a way the Museum knew might differ from Büchel's artistic concept. Büchel cites an email chain on February 14 that included Joseph Thompson and Dante Birch, in which Thompson, stating that the Museum seem[ed] to be getting closer and closer to Plan B, gave specific instructions on various elements of the installation. Thompson suggested that Museum staff do [a]nything else Dante and Nato feel is known with 80% certainty. At least some Museum staff members recognized that continuing to work on the installation without Büchel's input might be problematic. Later in the February 14 email chain, Dante Birch noted that he was interested in protecting the museum from intellectual property issues. Pointing out that the show was advertised as a Büchel in the Museum's schedule, he stated that when reviewers came, the question will be `what is it?' ... and if it's reviewed as a Buchel we're in deep shit. Thompson's plans also raised concern among other MASS MoCA employees, including curator Susan Cross, who cautioned Thompson in a January 31 email that we tend to forget that whether we're doing the welding or not, there is an `author'an artist for whom we shouldn't make decisions.... At what point, if at all, does an artist lose his right to owning the idea and his/her `intellectual property?' ... I think it is still art and still belongs to Buchel. Both in his deposition and in his affidavit, Büchel described ways in which he felt the Museum had knowingly disregarded his specific instructions. For example, MASS MoCA's decision to build a cinderblock wall through the Cape Codstyle house in the installation, despite Büchel's expressed desire that the construction await his return, resulted in what Büchel considered a big distortion of the meaning of that element. The record is replete with similar allegations concerning other components of the installation, including the cinema, the bomb carousel, the Saddam spiderhole, the police car and the mobile home. Indeed, even the Museum, in its August 31, 2007 memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment, admitted that the installation [m]aterials as they now stand reflect significant aesthetic and design choices by MASS MoCA personnel, including with respect to the layout of the [m]aterials, and with respect to the selection and procurement of pre-existing buildings and vehicles that have been modified and incorporated into the [m]aterials. (Emphasis added.) [19] MASS MoCA argues that the evidence, taken in its entirety, does not add up to a triable issue with respect to a violation of Büchel's right of integrity, but shows only that Museum personnel were attempting to carry out Büchel's vision based on his instructions. Indeed, the Museum notes that the work slowed as Büchel's instructions became unavailable. [20] MASS MoCA specifically disputes Büchel's reading of the February 14 email chain as demonstrating the Museum's disregard of his creative rights over the installation, asserting that the discussion among its staff members in fact reflects a conscious effort to determine how far the Museum could appropriately go in light of the remaining instructions left by the artist. In one email, for example, Thompson noted that we are putting the correct objects in the spaces cb indicated. ... That's not `doing a buechel [sic]' that's prepping for buechel [sic] assuming, as we still are, that there is some chance we'll see him here again. Other communications in the record also could be interpreted as showing the Museum doing its best to carry out Büchel's concept for the art work. As we have noted, a jury may well accept the Museum's depiction of its intention and its actions. At this juncture, however, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to Büchel. The evidence we have described would permit a jury to find that the Museum forged ahead with the installation in the first half of 2007 knowing that the continuing construction in Büchel's absence would frustrate and likely contradictBüchel's artistic vision. We thus conclude that a jury issue exists as to whether these actions effected an intentional distortion or other modification of Training Ground that subjected MASS MoCA to liability under VARA. The record also contains evidence from which a jury could conclude that the Museum's alterations had a detrimental impact on Büchel's honor or reputation. An article in the Boston Globe reported that, in February, Museum officials had shown the unfinished project to a group of Museum directors and curators who were attending an arts conference in the area. See Geoff Edgers, Behind doors, a world unseen: Dispute cloaks massive installation at MASS MoCA, Boston Globe (March 28, 2007), available at www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2007/03/28/behind_doors_a_world_unseen/ ( Behind doors, a world unseen ). Another journalist reported on observing the unfinished (and still untarped) work. See The Show Will Go On, supra. Although the commentary generated by these visits is not all negative, [21] there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the changes to Training Ground caused prejudice to Büchel. The New York Times noted that the exhibition would certainly give people unfamiliar with his obsessive, history-driven aesthetic an inaccurate sense of his art, and this is indeed a form of damage. Is It Art Yet?, supra. A critic for the Boston Globe similarly observed that many people are going to judge [Büchel] and his work on the basis of this experience. Ken Johnson, No admittance: MASS MoCA has mishandled disputed art installation, Boston Globe, July 1, 2007, at 1N. One viewer, writing in Commentary magazine, observed that I am not sure that it suffers from being enveiled. Michael J. Lewis, The Cost of Transgression, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/lewis/499 (June 4, 2007). A review published in Berkshire Fine Arts subtitled Crap Under Wrapconcluded that it would be a huge mistake to uncover the installation, which offered virtually nothing of substance or interest. Crap Under Wrap, supra. The record thus shows that some viewers of the installation reacted unfavorably to the work in its allegedly modified and distorted form. A factfinder might conclude, of course, that it was Büchel's underlying concept (notwithstanding its unfinished state) rather than MASS MoCA's actions that elicited the negative reactions. However, a jury could also reasonably infer that the negative impressions resulted from the Museum's unauthorized modifications to Training Ground, diminishing the quality of the work and thereby harming Büchel's professional honor or reputation as a visual artist. In concluding that Büchel has adduced sufficient evidence to support a right-of-integrity claim, we reject the Museum's assertion that to find a violation of Büchel's right of integrity in these circumstances would make it impossible for parties to collaborate on large-scale artistic works. The Museum warns that, under Büchel's interpretation, no one other than the artist himself ... may ever perform any work in fabricating visual art unless that specific task has been authorized by the artist. We disagree. Although the artist's vision must govern, that principle does not prevent collaboration at the implementation level so long as the artist's vision guides that implementation. Here, Büchel alleges a campaign of intentional distortion and modification to his work in which Museum personnel repeatedly ignored his express wishes. Our holding that the summary judgment record precludes an affirmance of the district court on this claim may serve as a cautionary tale to museums contemplating similar installations in the futureguiding them to document the terms of their relationship and obtain VARA waivers where necessarybut it does not prevent museums or other collaborators from working cooperatively with artists on such non-traditional artworks.
Büchel also claims that MASS MoCA improperly modified and distorted Training Ground when it partially covered it with the yellow tarpaulins and displayed it in that condition. He asserts that the record shows beyond dispute that visitors looked behind the tarps, that the tarp-adorned installation was judged by others to be Büchel's work, and that his honor and reputation were harmed by it. In response, the Museum argues that the yellow tarpaulins were merely functionala way of keeping people out of the installationrather than an aesthetic modification of the artwork that gave MASS MoCA patrons a distorted view of it. Although the tarpaulins did prevent visitors to the Museum from seeing the entire unfinished installation, the record shows that a number of people were able to form an impression of Training Ground despite the partial covering. For example, according to one observer, [the tarps] don't reach the floor, and they rise only about two feet above eye level, so they don't cover much. You can easily crouch down to slip your head underneath or peek through the slits between the vinyl sheets. Beyond the passageway formed by the tarps, the monumental elements of the installation rise all around you, plain as daythe cinderblock walls, the two-story house, the guard tower, the trailers, the carnival ride, all compacted together in a claustrophobic, politically surreal borough of hell, George Orwell by way of David Lynch. Thomas Micchelli, Christoph Büchel Training Ground for Democracy, The Brooklyn Rail (September 2007), available at http://www.brooklynrail.org/2007/09/artseen/buchel. Another critic noted that the installation under all the tarps is really kind of a conceptual peep show. It doesn't take much effort or imagination to see most of the work.... Mass MoCA is hiding an elephant behind a napkin, and called it a wink, wink, wrap show. Crap Under Wrap, supra. Photographs in the record confirm that the covers did not obscure the general path and layout of the installation. Indeed, given the location of Training Ground, visitors to Made at MASS MoCA could not avoid seeing the unfinished Training Ground bedecked in tarpaulins. Nonetheless, although the installation unquestionably looked different with the tarpaulins partially covering it, we agree with the district court that the mere covering of the artwork by the Museum, its host, cannot reasonably be deemed an intentional act of distortion or modification of Büchel's creation. To conclude otherwise would be to say that, even if all had gone well, the Museum would have been subject to a right-of-integrity claim if it had partially covered the work before its formal opening to prevent visitors from seeing it prematurely. This is not to say that MASS MoCA was necessarily acting with pure intentions when it created Made at MASS MoCA in close proximity to the tarped Training Ground. It might be a fair inference that the Museum was deliberately communicating its anger with Büchel by juxtaposing his unfinished work with the successful artistic collaborations depicted in its new exhibition. The partial covering of Training Ground may have been intended to highlight, rather than hide, the failed collaboration. [22] The right of integrity under VARA, however, protects the artist from distortions of his work, not from disparaging commentary about his behavior. In our view, a finding that the Museum's covering of the installation constituted an intentional act of distortion or modification of Büchel's artistic creation would stretch VARA beyond sensible boundaries.
Büchel maintains that, even aside from the alleged modifications to Training Ground, merely exhibiting the work of art in its unfinished state, without the artist's consent, constitutes a distortion. We reject this claim. A separate moral right of disclosure (also known as the right of divulgation) protects an author's authority to prevent third parties from disclosing [his or her] work to the public without the author's consent, and is not covered by VARA. See Cyrill P. Rigamonti, Deconstructing Moral Rights, 47 Harv. Int'l L.J. 353, 373, 405 (2006) ([T]he VARA ignores the rights of disclosure and withdrawal and instead focuses on the rights of attribution and integrity....). Although Büchel proffered an expert who opined that showing an unfinished work without the artist's permission is inherently a distortion, we decline to interpret VARA to include such a claim where a separate moral right of disclosure is widely recognized in other jurisdictions and Congress explicitly limited the statute's coverage to the rights of attribution and integrity. See Amy M. Adler, Against Moral Rights, 97 Cal. L.Rev. 263, 268 (2009) (noting that most European countries recognize a right of divulgation, giving the artist the right to decide when (and whether) the work is complete and can be shown); Rigamonti, supra, at 356 (The standard set of moral rights recognized in the literature consists of the author's right to claim authorship (right of attribution), the right to object to modifications of the work (right of integrity), the right to decide when and how the work in question will be published (right of disclosure), and the right to withdraw a work after publication (right of withdrawal). (footnotes omitted)); 5 Patry on Copyright § 16:23 (noting that VARA does not give the artist a right to prohibit display of mutilated versions of his or her work, only the right to prohibit the mutilation itself). Any right Büchel possesses to withhold display of his artwork must be found outside VARA. We consider below his claim to such a right under section 106(5) of the Copyright Act. See infra Section IV.
After careful review of the record, we are persuaded that a reasonable jury could find that Büchel is entitled to relief under VARA based on the Museum's continuing work on Training Ground over his objections. Genuine disputes of material fact foreclose summary judgment for either Büchel or MASS MoCA on that claim. We find no merit, however, in Büchel's claim that MASS MoCA intentionally modified or distorted Training Ground by covering it with tarpaulins, and we reject as outside the scope of the statute Büchel's claim that the Museum violated VARA by displaying the installation over his objections. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Museum on Büchel's right-of-attribution claim, which became moot when MASS MoCA dismantled the installation in 2007.