Wild flowers give Chicago city bosses a run for their money

From lawyer, journalist and occasional pen-friend of the IPKat Jeff John Roberts comes the exciting news of something almost as unusual as an admission from the US Patent and Trademark Office that its patent system is out of step with the rest of the world -- a truly rare US moral rights case,Chapman Kelley v Chicago Park District (here).

The disputants here were the City of Chicago, no less, and the creator of two very large oval gardens known as "Wildflower Works" (right), located in the city's main park.  Chapman Kelley for years oversaw volunteers who filled the gardens with hundreds of types of flowers capable of surviving the city's tough climate. The result was an evolving and ongoing spectacle that delighted city residents and received praise in the press.

One day, Jeff John explains, the city decided the lovely gardens had to be scaled back to make room for the new Millennium Park. Kelley's grand ovals were turned into squares and reduced to about half the original size. Kelley invoked his right of integrity under America's little-used Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), a piece of legislation that Congress reluctantly passed in order to comply with the Berne Convention.

At first instance the district court found for the city: while Kelley's creation was indeed both a painting and a sculpture, it lacked originality and was in any case ineligible for protection because it fell under a site-specific art exception under VARA. The 7th Circuit rejected both these findings, spending a healthy amount of time knocking around the district judge while doing so. The appellate court suggested that the site-specific exception was intended for works incorporated into buildings and, in regard to the originality finding, the judge had erroneously equated originality with novelty; the law however is clear that a work can be original even if it is not novel.  But all this is essentially obiter because:
"The Park District has not challenged the district court’s conclusion that Wildflower Works is a painting and a sculpture. This is an astonishing omission ... 
The real impediment to copyright here is not that Wildflower Works fails the test for originality (understood as “not copied” and “possessing some creativity”) but that a living garden lacks the kind of authorship and stable fixation normally required to support copyright ... 
Simply put, gardens are planted and cultivated, not authored. A garden’s constituent elements are alive and inherently changeable, not fixed."
Finally, the decision contains a guest appearance by serial copyright litigant Jeffrey Koons, noting that, while Wildflower Works is ineligible, more sturdy topiary works like Koons' 42-foot floral "Puppy" (above, right) did meet the fixation requirement.

Thanks, Jeff John, for this fascinating insight into US horticulture!  Merpel adds, in previous generations the City of Chicago has had to tussle with opponents like Al Capone and Baby Face Nelson.  Even so, it must have thought it would be easier to get the better of a bunch of flowers ...
Wild flowers give Chicago city bosses a run for their money Wild flowers give Chicago city bosses a run for their money Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, March 07, 2011 Rating: 5


  1. Much thanks for posting the item on you blog! Chapman Kelley's attorneys have been given authorization by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) to petition the court to escalate his case to a "full" appellate panel of justices for a rehearing. Deadline for filing is March 15, 2011. Stay tuned. John Viramontes - Council for Artists' Rights (Chicago, IL USA)

  2. please correct the spelling of the artists' surname, it should be Kelley
    thank you!

  3. Spelling duly amended -- not sure I'd use the word "corrected" because I wouldn't like to upset any biological Kelly by suggesting that his or her spelling was in any sense incorrect :-)


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.