In a recent development that may impact future interactions between artists and institutions, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) does not criminalize the covering of an artist’s mural, provided no damage is imposed upon the artwork. The preceding verdict was announced in the case of Samuel Kerson v. Vermont Law School, Inc., Case No. 21-2904 (2d. Cir. Aug. 18, 2023) (Livingston, Cabranes, Kovner, JJ.) as reported by McDermott Will & Emery on JD Supra.
The Visual Artists Rights Act, or VARA, was instituted three decades ago to protect the rights of artists. However, this ruling showcases a significant gap in the regulations contained within the Act itself. The lien emphasizes the physical damage to an artwork as a violation but does not explicitly address instances when art pieces are covered or concealed in their entirety.
This could lead to further debates in the same vein and calls into question the appropriate measures that should be undertaken to minimize the subjection of art pieces to indirect forms of damage. The potential repercussions in larger and culturally significant institutions are worth pondering upon, especially concerning murals that may be covered as part of renovation or modernization activities.
In summary, while the VARA aims to safeguard the rights of visual artists and their creations, its limitations are highlighted in this recent ruling. Institutions may need to tread cautiously around these legal nuances to avoid potential disputes. On a broader scale, this case underlines the challenges faced in maintaining a delicate balance between the artists’ rights and an institution’s operational demands.