Form Over Function: Remedying VARA's Exclusion of Visual Art with Functional Qualities

• Author: Brandon J. Pakkebier
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2018; B.S., University of Minnesota Twin Cities, 2015
• Pages: 1329-1359

1329

Form Over Function: Remedying VARA’s

Exclusion of Visual Art with Functional

Qualities

Brandon J. Pakkebier *

ABSTRACT: The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (“VARA”) grants

certain moral rights to creators of statutorily enumerated “visual art.”

Excluded from the definition of visual art, however, is the undefined category

of “applied art.” Courts grappling with how to interpret “applied art” have

decided on a test that focuses solely on a work of art’s functional or utilitarian

characteristics. This Note argues that such an emphasis defeats the goals and

purposes underlying VARA, excludes legitimate visual arts from

qualification, and contradicts both legislative intent and statutory

construction. This Note further argues that a multi-factor test incorporating

aspects of subsidiary copyright law more effectively implements the purposes

and aims of VARA while remaining true to the narrow focus of the statute.

I.INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1330

II.THE IMPORTATION OF MORAL RIGHTS TO THE UNITED

STATES ........................................................................................ 1331

A.MORAL RIGHTS GENERALLY .................................................. 1331

B.THE RECOGNITION OF MORAL RIGHTS OUTSIDE THE

UNITED STATES ..................................................................... 1333

C.THE UNITED STATES JOINS THE BERNE CONVENTION .............. 1334

D.THE VISUAL ARTISTS RIGHTS ACT OF 1990: A NARROW

APPROACH TO CONVENTION COMPLIANCE .............................. 1335

1.Congress Excludes Works for Hire from Moral

Rights Protection ......................................................... 1335

2.Congress Further Narrows Moral Rights

Protections by Limiting VARA to Visual Art ............. 1336

E.THE SCOPE OF VARA: JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF

VISUAL ART AND APPLIED ART ............................................... 1337

*

J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2018; B.S., Universit y of

Minnesota Twin Cities, 2015. Thank you to the University of Minnesota Parking and

Transportation Services for being the inspiration behind the search that produced this piece.

1330 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 103:1329

III. TOO BRIGHT A LINE: WHY FUNCTIONALITY IS TOO NARROW

OF A TEST .................................................................................... 1340

A.INTENT TO INCLUDE; EFFECT TO EXCLUDE .............................. 1340

1.Inherently Fine Art with Functional

Characteristics ............................................................. 1341

2.Applied Art with Fine Art Characteristics .................. 1343

B.THE EFFECT ON ART .............................................................. 1344

C.THE ROLE MORAL RIGHTS RECOGNITION PLAYS .................... 1346

IV.VISUAL ART RE-ENVISIONED ....................................................... 1347

A.THE FOUR-PRONG TEST ......................................................... 1348

1.Codifying Recognized Stature .................................... 1348

2.Conceptual Severability .............................................. 1349

3.Mass Reproduction ..................................................... 1351

i.The Noscitur a Sociis Canon Generally ..................... 1351

ii.The Noscitur Canon Is Not Applicable to

Interpreting Applied Art ........................................... 1352

iii.Even if the Noscitur Canon Applies, Mass

Reproduction Is the Proper “Common Grouping”

that Defines Applied Art ........................................... 1352

iv.The Result Is the Same: Applied Art Is Not About

Functionality ........................................................... 1353

4.Artist Intent.................................................................. 1354

B.REDEFINING VISUAL ART BY TEST APPLICATION ..................... 1355

1.Architecture ................................................................. 1355

2.Quilts ............................................................................ 1356

3.The Ship La Contessa ................................................... 1357

C.BALANCING ACT: POLICY AND REALITY .................................. 1358

V.CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 1358

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States entered a new era of artist recognition when it enacted

the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (“VARA”) and simultaneously acceded to

the international Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic

Works (“Berne Convention”). In passing VARA, the United States signaled to

the world that it too would recognize an artist’s intangible interests in

protecting his or her works from destruction, mutilation, or removal, while

also protecting the artist’s name and reputation associated with the art itself.1

Through nearly 25 years of judicial interpretation, however, United States

federal courts have systematically disassembled the protections that VARA

1. See infra notes 20–33 and accompanying text.