## Facts

- Jan Randolph Martin, an Indianapolis artist and metal sculptor, created a large outdoor stainless-steel work titled “Symphony #1.”
- In 1984, Martin obtained permission to install the sculpture on private land owned by a company whose property was subject to City redevelopment oversight.
- The sculpture was built over approximately 2.5 years and completed in 1987; it was designed to be disassembled and moved.
- A redevelopment-related agreement included a clause requiring the property owner to remove the sculpture within 60 days after written notification if the City determined the sculpture was incompatible with redevelopment.
- During an urban renewal project, the City acquired the property and decided to clear the site.
- Martin repeatedly informed the City that the sculpture could be dismantled and offered to remove or relocate it.
- The City demolished the sculpture without giving Martin written notice or an opportunity to retrieve or relocate it.
- Martin sued, alleging violation of his VARA right to prevent intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work of recognized stature.

## Issues

1. Whether “Symphony #1” was a “work of visual art” of “recognized stature” protected from destruction under 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(B).
2. Whether letters from arts professionals and media coverage were admissible to prove recognized stature, or barred as hearsay.
3. Whether the redevelopment agreement’s removal clause waived or limited VARA rights or authorized destruction without liability.
4. Whether the City’s violation was willful for purposes of statutory damages.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment that the City violated VARA by demolishing a work of recognized stature.
- The court upheld admission of letters and press coverage as evidence of the sculpture’s recognition because they were used to show that favorable statements and attention occurred, not to prove the truth of each asserted opinion.
- The court rejected the City’s contractual defense, holding the removal clause did not authorize destruction and, in any event, required written notice that was never provided.
- The court modified the damages characterization, concluding the City’s conduct met the standard for willfulness.

## Legal Principles

- A VARA destruction claim requires proof that the work is of “recognized stature,” generally shown by (1) merit and (2) recognition by art experts, the artistic community, or a cross-section of society.
- Evidence such as letters, reviews, and news articles may be admissible to establish recognition when offered to prove the fact of attention or acclaim, rather than the truth of the underlying evaluative assertions.
- Contract provisions addressing redevelopment or “removal” of an artwork do not waive VARA rights unless the waiver is express, written, and satisfies VARA’s waiver requirements; authorization to remove does not equal authorization to destroy.
- Willfulness for statutory damages may be found where the defendant acts knowingly, with reckless disregard, or with willful blindness to the likelihood that protected rights are being violated.

## Conclusion

The court held that the City’s demolition of Martin’s removable public sculpture violated VARA because the work had recognized stature, the asserted contractual “removal” language neither authorized destruction nor effected a VARA-compliant waiver, and the City’s disregard of the artist’s interests and available alternatives supported a finding of willfulness for damages purposes.


Martin v. City of Indianapolis, 192 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 1999)