An interesting Ninth Circuit VARA decision that turns into a debate about the meaning of "applied art" (because applied art is an exception to VARA; if it's applied art, it's not protected).
The case involves La Contessa, "a used school bus transformed into a mobile replica of a 16th-century Spanish galleon" for use at the Burning Man festival for several years, and then destroyed.
The majority opinion wants a relatively objective test: "the focus of our inquiry should be on whether the object in question originally was—and continues to be—utilitarian in nature." If the object "initially served a utilitarian function" and "continues to serve such a function" even after the artist transforms it, then it's applied art (and therefore not protected by VARA). The majority wants judges to (and this is relevant, I think, to the fair use/appropriation debate) stay out of the business of making aesthetic judgments: the alternative proposed by the concurring judge -- to ask whether a work is primarily directed to a practical purpose -- would "necessarily require[] courts to express judgments regarding the importance of an object’s artistic qualities," and "how different judges could answer such a question on a consistent basis is anything but clear."
The concurrence calls for a "more textured and flexible definition." VARA's protections "cannot be limited only to works entirely devoid of any utilitarian purpose. ... Many outstanding sculptures, including the Caryatids of the Acropolis and the monumental carvings of Ramses at the temple of Karnak are in fact columns that provided buildings with structural integrity. Medieval tapestries not only represented a form of fine art, but also kept castles and cathedrals free from draft." "To effect the purpose of VARA and provide guidance for the
art community, I believe courts should evaluate the work as a whole, asking
whether its primary purpose is to serve a useful function and whether the
artistic creation is subservient to that purpose. If the primary purpose is for
the work to be viewed and perceived as art, then any incidental utilitarian
function will not push it outside the scope of VARA."
I score this round for the concurrence.
Eileen Kinsella has a good write-up at artnet. Courthouse News Service here.
