Cheffins v. Stewart, No. 12-16913 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs and volunteers built the La Contessa, a replica of a 16th-century Spanish galleon, from a used school bus for use at the Burning Man Festival. Defendant intentionally burned the wooden structure of the La Contessa so that a scrap metal dealer could remove the underlying school bus from his property. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendant violated the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 17 U.S.C. 106(A), and committed common law conversion when he destroyed the La Contessa. The trial court granted summary judgment on their VARA claim and awarded attorneys' fees. The court held that an object constitutes a piece of “applied art”- as opposed to a “work of visual art”- where the object initially served a utilitarian function and the object continues to serve such a function after the artist made embellishments or alterations to it. Conversely, “applied art” would not include a piece of art whose function is purely aesthetic or a utilitarian object which is so transformed through the addition of artistic elements that its utilitarian functions cease. In this case, the court concluded that the La Contessa plainly was "applied art," and thus was not a work of visual art under the VARA and not eligible for its protection. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendant on the VARA claim. The court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of two of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, nor did the trial court err in its jury instructions on abandoned property and abandonment. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to include jury instructions on lost profits and punitive damages resulting from the destruction of the La Contessa; in admitting evidence of drug paraphenalia surrounding the La Contessa as it sat on defendant’s property; and in denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their conversion claim. Finally, the trial court did not err in awarding attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Visual Artists Rights Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant in an action under the Visual Artists Rights Act and Nevada law. Plaintiffs transformed a used school bus into La Contessa, a mobile replica of a 16th-century Spanish galleon for use at the Burning Man Festival. After the defendant took possession of the land on which La Contessa was stored, he burned its wooden structure so that a scrap metal dealer could remove the underlying school bus from his property. Affirming the district court’s summary judgment on the VARA claim, the panel held that La Contessa was “applied art” and therefore was not covered by VARA’s protection of artists’ rights of integrity and attribution in works of visual art. Agreeing in large part with the Second Circuit’s analysis, the panel held that an object constitutes a piece of applied art¯as opposed to a work of visual art¯where the object initially served a utilitarian function and the object continues to serve such a function after the artist makes embellishments to it. The panel held that at trial on the plaintiffs’ conversion claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony, nor in instructing the jury on abandoned property, lost profits, and punitive damages. The CHEFFINS V. STEWART 3 district court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of drug paraphernalia surrounding La Contessa as it sat on the defendant’s property. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not err in awarding attorneys’ fees to the defendant after the plaintiffs rejected an offer of judgment made under Nevada law. Concurring, Judge McKeown expressed concern with the majority’s definition of applied art. She wrote that the right question to ask is whether the primary purpose of the work as a whole is to serve a practical, useful function, and whether the aesthetic elements are subservient to that utilitarian purpose.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.