Abstract
In 2007, the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art sought a declaratory judgment permitting it to display an unfinished installation artwork by artist Christoph Buchel without Buchel's permission. Bchel attempted to stop the display by arguing that it violated his moral rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act ("VARA'). The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of the museum, holding in part that the "collaborative" nature of the installation's construction precluded VARA protection. The court analogized the artwork to a motion picture, which the Act's legislative history characterized as the type of collaborative effort VARA does not encompass. This Note argues that the court misconstrued this legislative history in two ways. First, Congress intended to exempt only those types of collaborative efforts where granting moral rights in each contributor would significantly impair the commercial viability of the work. By extending this exemption to any type of collaboration, regardless of the creative control of the participant parties, the Bichel court effectively denied moral rights protection to all artists exhibiting large-scale works in American museums. Second, although Congress intended for VARA to be a narrow enactment, it anticipated that courts would use their common sense and evolving artistic standards to define the statute's scope. Yet, despite this congressional intent, Bichel is simply the latest in a line of cases that have denied VARA protection to new and nontraditional art forms.
Recommended Citation
Sarah L. Rector,
A Training Ground for Contemporary Art: Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art v. Biichel's Overly Broad Exclusion of Artistic Collaborations,
81
U. Colo. L. Rev.
579
(2010).
Available at:
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/lawreview/vol81/iss2/6