Talk:Visual Artists Rights Act

Application
I am concerned that additions to this section have included too many references to small pieces of specific cases without any context or explanation for their importance. For example, the recently added piece.
 * "Painter Chapman Kelley received a preliminary favorable ruling from Judge David Coar on September 27, 2007. Kelley is the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit invoking VARA against the Chicago Park District."

I'm not sure how this helps anyone understand the Act. Now, if this is a particularly important case or newsworthy example of it, then it could be included, but it needs to have some explanation for its importance. This section should not be a dumping ground for spot dispositions of random cases that happen to involve the law. This law is not so esoteric that every invocation of it deserves mention. I've removed that line, however if there is more context to support its relevance then that should be added back into the article along with the removed piece.LH (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On Sept. 29, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge David H. Coar deemed the Wildflower Works a painting and a sculpture under the VARA. This is a significant development in the art world. Previously, only "traditional" materials such as metal, wood, and stone were legally recognized. Now, non-traditional materials such as wildflowers can legally be considered art.Johnvir (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While the ruling may have some historic significance, I'm unaware of any real barrier attached to "non-traditional" sculptures being protected by the act.

District court cases do not have precedential effect. More importantly, the context was missing. But if an editor could add some well sourced context for why this particular cases is historically relevant, that might be helpful. LH (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

On Sept. 10, 2009 Chapman Kelley Vs. Chicago Park District had oral arguments in the Seventh Circuit, appellate division. Decision is pending. The case is being tracked internationally mainly in art and art law circles. The internationally-published The Art Newspaper has published several articles specifically about the case and as recent as June 4, 2009. Should Kelley prevail--several attorneys related and not related to the case feel that he will prevail--the decision will allow artists who use non-traditional materials to have their work protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990.Johnvir (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kelley lost. —suriv (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Author name.
§ 106A a1B "to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;"

What happens if well-known artist John Smith (1) objects to bad artist John Smith (2) when 2 wrote his name on a work of visual art 2 created himself? -- Jeandré, 2010-11-07t06:32z, -- Jeandré, 2010-11-07t06:33z

US copy[rite]
The Western District of Arkansas' Honorable Jimm_Larry_Hendren article mentions the judge ending one Arkansas ban on Harry Potter Books in libraries but does not mention the ruling that indisputably makes United States [sic]"copyright" a ritual that protects no authors' rights whatsoever.

Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-5151) is the only ruling in history that addresses the Visual_Artists_Rights_Act for photography and held the 1991 Visual_Artists_Rights_Act does not apply when photographs are used online. This ruling keeps the United States from being compliant with the Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works despite signing this treaty.

Google Inc spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees during this litigation and no other use of the Visual_Artists_Rights_Act exists as should be noted.

I can not add this superb encyclopedia content for reasons that should be obvious. This important and very notable information could be researched and added by anyone with a PACER account or using the free mirror of the docket with PACER links included for verification. PACER Docket or the Free Docket mirror This judicial ruling utterly invalidated this Congressional Act withing the United States. CurtisNeeley (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The last 2 sentences of the Covered Works sunsection are either biased, not sufficiently attributed, or just confusingly written:

"This judicial repeal caused this Act to not allow good Samaritan parents to prevent undesired displays of their immoral, indecent, or profane visual art to their own children against their moral wishes. This ruling left parent artists unable to continue producing adult artwork in America and protect honor because moral rights to prevent immoral display of art no longer exist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.26.108 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)