Martin v. Indianapolis case brief summary

Martin v. Indianapolis
982 F. Supp 625 (1997) 
 

·         P created sculpture on private land, but owned by his boss

·         Issue: P asserts claim under VARA for destruction.

D’s Arguments for SJ

1.        Not a work of recognized stature. (not defined in VARA)

o    Test for Stature: 1) viewed at meritorious; 2) “recognized” by art experts and member of art community. deters nuisances suits for damaged finger paints

o    Ct held: was stature

2.        Sculpture was advertising and excluded from VARA

o    “work of visual art” does not include any merchandising item or ad,

o    Ct held: not ad

3.        Work made for Hire and excluded under 101

o    D argues employer provided all materials, was in scope of employment

o    R. Agency §228(1) scope of employment test

1.        Kind of work – P claims work is more engineering, and charges fee for artistic abilities on designs

Ct ruled: not work for hire

P’s argument

1.        Author §101

2.        Work of visual art – painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy.

3.        Sculpture was created before VARA but P maintained title

4.        Work of recognized stature – P had recognized status in art community and public

5.        Was intentionally destroyed 17 USC 106A(a)(3)(b) – destruction must be intentional or grossly negligent.

 

Ruling: court grants P’s MSJ, issue of damages remains