## Facts

- A contemporary art museum invited Swiss installation artist Christoph Büchel to create a large-scale installation, “Training Ground for Democracy,” in a very large gallery space.
- The parties did not execute a written contract allocating ownership, control, or intellectual-property rights in the installation or its components.
- The museum acquired and assembled objects and materials as the project expanded in complexity and cost.
- The relationship deteriorated: the museum viewed the artist’s directions and demands as unreasonable; the artist believed the museum compromised his artistic integrity and failed to follow instructions.
- The installation was not completed, and communications broke down.
- The museum sought to open the partially assembled environment to the public without Büchel’s continued participation and filed suit seeking a declaration allowing it to present the materials and partial constructions.
- Büchel counterclaimed under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) and the Copyright Act, seeking to stop any display of the unfinished work and to recover damages.

## Issues

1. Whether VARA’s moral-rights protections extend to unfinished works that otherwise qualify as a “work of visual art.”
2. Whether the museum violated VARA’s right of integrity by modifying or showing an altered, unfinished installation in a manner prejudicial to the artist’s honor or reputation.
3. Whether VARA’s right of attribution supported injunctive relief where the installation had been dismantled.
4. Whether the museum infringed the artist’s exclusive right of public display under 17 U.S.C. § 106(5) by showing the unfinished or modified installation without authorization.

## Decision

- The First Circuit held that VARA can apply to unfinished works that meet the statutory definition of a “work of visual art.”
- The court vacated summary judgment on a VARA integrity theory because genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the museum modified the work and whether any modification was prejudicial to the artist’s honor or reputation.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the VARA attribution claim as moot because VARA afforded only injunctive relief for that theory and the installation no longer existed.
- The court held the artist had a viable Copyright Act claim for infringement of the exclusive public-display right and vacated summary judgment on that claim.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- VARA’s rights of attribution and integrity may attach to unfinished art if the work qualifies as a “work of visual art” under the Copyright Act; completion is not a prerequisite.
- A VARA integrity claim may arise from a “distortion, mutilation, or other modification” of qualifying visual art that is prejudicial to the artist’s honor or reputation; disputed questions about modification and prejudice generally require factfinding.
- A claim seeking only injunctive relief becomes moot when the complained-of conduct cannot recur because the work no longer exists and no effective injunction is available.
- Separately from VARA, an artist may pursue a claim that unauthorized viewing of a protected work constitutes infringement of the exclusive right to display the work publicly under 17 U.S.C. § 106(5), where factual disputes exist about what was displayed and under what authority.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit recognized that VARA can protect unfinished visual art, reinstated fact-bound integrity and copyright public-display claims, and treated the attribution claim as moot because no effective injunctive relief remained once the installation had been dismantled.


Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Foundation, Inc. v. Buchel, 593 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2010)