A 1990 US statute names which visual works get attribution rights

The image

The document is Section 106A of the U.S. Copyright Act, the provision enacted as the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), reproduced on the U.S. Copyright Office's own codified text of Title 17 and mirrored at Cornell Law School. It grants 'the author of a work of visual art' two categories of right, attribution and integrity, and the same statute carries, in its section 101 definitions, an explicit list of exactly which works qualify as a 'work of visual art.'

What the documents show

Section 106A's text states that the author of a work of visual art has the right 'to claim authorship of that work' and '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,' plus the right to prevent 'intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification' prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation, and to prevent destruction of 'a work of recognized stature.' Cornell's copy of the statute confirms the duration term: qualifying rights 'endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.' Crucially, the statute's own definition of 'work of visual art' is narrow: paintings, drawings, prints, or sculptures existing as a single copy or a signed, numbered edition of 200 or fewer, or still photographs made for exhibition under the same terms. The same definition states 'a work of visual art does not include' posters, maps, 'motion picture or other audiovisual work,' books, magazines, or 'any work made for hire.'

Production context

Editorially, that exclusion is the operative fact for film and television production: a motion picture is named directly as outside VARA's definition, and nearly all production work, concept art, storyboards, design drawings, made under a work-for-hire agreement is separately excluded. So a production designer's or concept artist's uncredited drawing generally cannot ground a VARA claim on either basis, the medium or the employment status, though the same designer might have other credit remedies under guild agreements.

Reference versus imitation

Citing VARA as protection for a film's 'look,' a cinematographer's uncredited lighting choice, or a costume designer's uncredited sketch misapplies the statute; its own text limits coverage to single-copy or strictly limited-edition paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and exhibition photographs, categories a motion picture and its work-for-hire production art do not fall into. Anyone invoking VARA in a production-credit dispute should be able to point to the specific single-copy or limited-edition visual artwork the statute actually covers, not to the production as a whole.

• Is the work a painting, drawing, print, sculpture, or exhibition photograph in a single copy or limited edition of 200 or fewer?
• Was the work created as an employee's work made for hire, which the statute excludes outright?
• Is the claimed right attribution, integrity, or something the statute does not grant at all?

VARA is a real, specific, and narrow US statute; reading it onto film and television production work generally, rather than the limited category of fine art and exhibition photography its own text names, is a documented misapplication the statute itself forecloses.