The Razing of Symphony #1

LIBM 6320: Copyright BriefBy: Sandra RiceNovember 20, 2011

http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/chp5/martinindianapolis.htmSymphony #1 image retrieved November 20, 2011, from

Background In 1984, Jan Randolph Martin, an artist employed by

Tarpenning-LaFollette Co., received permission from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission to erect a metal sculpture on land owned by the chairman of the company. After two years, the sculpture was completed. There was an agreement that should the sculpture no longer be compatible with the existing land use or if acquisition of the property was necessary that the owner of the land and Martin would be given 90 days in which to disassemble and move said sculpture. In 1992 the City notified Lafolette and Martin about a public hearing concerning the land which was home for the sculpture known as Symphony #1 (“Martin v. City,” 1999).

Image of bulldozer retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bulldozer+pushing+down+building&hl

Trouble Ahead

Symphony #1 image retrieved November 20, 2011, fromhttp://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/chp5/martinindianapolis.htm

Demolition

The City purchased the land and Martin proposed and agreed to assist so Symphony #1 could be saved and moved without damage. The City again stated that Martin would be contacted in the event the sculpture was to be removed. However, the City moved forward and awarded a contract to demolish Symphony #1, without notice to Lafolette or Martin. Demolition was carried out (“Martin v. City,” 1999).

lawsuitUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF INDIANA, INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JAN RANDOLPH MARTIN, Plaintiff

vs. 96 C 330

THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Defendant

Image retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://mylot.com

(“Martin v. City,” 1998)

Analysis

VARA was established by Congress in 1990. This act grants protection to moral rights of an artist regardless of who holds the copyright to the work (“Visual Artists Rights Act,” n.d.).

An artist’s identity is embodied in each work created by that artist and is a part of his/her reputation. VARA provides that an artist shall have the right to prevent destruction of a work of “recognized stature”. VARA, in spite of the significance of the phrase, did not define “recognized stature” which left its intended meaning and application open to argument and judicial resolution (“Martin v. City,” 1999).

Testimony The plaintiff argued that he had met his obligation of proving that his work met the requirement of “recognized stature” as defined under VARA (“Martin v. City,” 1998). The defendant argued that Martin had the burden of proving willful infringement and that he failed to prove that defendant willfully violated plaintiff’s rights under copyright law (“Martin v. City,” 1999).

Image retrieved November 20, 2011, from PowerPoint clipart

An order for summary judgment was granted to the Plaintiff Martin. The presiding Judge found that Martin should be awarded $20,000 and attorney’s fees. The Court refused to award plaintiff enhanced damages available under VARA because the City of Indianapolis was not aware of this statute and did not recklessly disregard plaintiff’s contractual and ownership rights (“Martin v. City,” 1999). Martin was not entirely satisfied with the ruling of the Court, nor was the City of Indianapolis. The City appealed and Martin cross-appealed (“Martin v. City,” 1999).

district court ruling

Case Title

JAN RANDOLPH MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Nos. 98-4041, 98-4132.

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH CIRCUIT

(“Martin v. City,” 1999)

ruling of the court

The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, being satisfied with the district court’s ruling and resulting judgment, affirmed the finding in all respects (“Martin v. City,” 1999).

Image retrieved November 20, 2011, from Steigerlaw.typepad.com

ReferencesMartin v. City of Indianapolis. (1999). Retrieved November 20, 2011,from

http://caeslaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1011296.html

Martin v. City of Indianapolis. (1998). Retrieved November 20, 2011, from

http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19980416_0000011.SIN.htm/qx

Martin v. City of Indianapolis. (1999). Retrieved November 20, 2011, from

http://Scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3534119763862727844&hl=en&as

(Visual Artists Rights Act, n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2011, from

Wilipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

Bulldozer image retrieved November 20, 2011, from

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bulldozer+pushing+down+building&hl

Gavel image retrieved November 20, 2011, from

http://mylot.com

Judge with gavel image retrieved November 20, 2011, from

http://www.Steigerlaw.typepad.com

Symphony #1 image retrieved November 20, 2011, from

http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/chp5/martinindiapapolis.htm

Witness taking oath image retrieved November 20, 2011, from

PowerPoint clipart

References for Images