Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Foundation, Inc. v. Buchel
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
593 F.3d 38 (2010)
Christoph Buchel (defendant) was a Swiss artist known for creating elaborate, interactive artistic works. Buchel contacted the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (MMCA) (plaintiff) to propose a large art installation at the MMCA entitled Training Ground for Democracy. Buchel spent 10 days at the MMCA in August 2006, during which Buchel designed the installation. MMCA agreed to buy the materials for the installation at MMCA’s own cost but under Buchel’s direction. Buchel was away from the MMCA for several months, during which time he sent detailed instructions to the MMCA regarding which materials to purchase and how to begin construction. In October 2006, the MMCA’s director, Joseph Thompson, made some decisions about the installation without consulting Buchel. Buchel was highly offended by Thompson’s actions. Buchel returned to the MMCA in late October. Buchel worked on the installation, including fixing work done by the MMCA that Buchel did not believe met his instructions. Buchel left for the holidays on December 17, intending to return January 3, 2007. However, the MMCA took some actions Buchel had forbidden, and Buchel refused to return unless the MMCA met certain conditions to address Buchel’s financial and artistic concerns. The MMCA’s staff continued work in Buchel’s absence, and allegedly showed the partially completed work without Buchel’s consent. In May 2007 The MMCA announced that the installation was cancelled. The MMCA allowed people to walk through the space to get to another exhibit. The existing work was covered with tarps. The MMCA filed for a declaration that it was entitled to present the installation to the public. Buchel counterclaimed, seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). The district court granted summary judgment to the MMCA, but the MMCA still removed the materials from the installation. Buchel appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lipez, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 726,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 726,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.