• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN
THE
U.S.C.i.. 'lth Ckcuit
RECEIVED LMf3
.111M 1 2 ")009
GiNO J. At?NELLO
CLE~K
No. 08-3701 & 08-3712
lIniteò ~tateg (lourt of Appealg
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Chapman Kelley,
Plaintiff - Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
v.
Chicago Park District,
Defendant - Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NO. 04-CV-07715
THE HONORABLE DAVID H. COAR
RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF OF
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE CHAPMAN KELLEY
Alex L. Karan
Micah E. Marcus
Hector Bove
KIRKLND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
(312) 862-2000
Counsel for Appellant Chapman Kelley
DATED: June 12, 2009
 
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellant, Chapman Kelley, respectfully requests oral argument pursuant to
Circuit Rule 34(f). The arguments of counsel at oral argument would advance thedecisional process of determining whether the District Court erred in not extending
copyright and VARA protection to Wildflower Works.
i
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................. ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................... iv
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT............................................................................1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................5
I. WILDFLOWER WORKS IS PROTECTED BYVARA.................................5
A. Vara Protects Site-Specific Art from Mutilation and Distortion............5B. Wildflower Works Satisfies Both the Originality and Fixation
Requirements of Copyright Law ..............................................................8
1. Wildflower Works Is Subject to Copyright Protection As
an Original Work Of Authorship ...................................................9
2. Wildflower Works Is Fixed in a Tangible Medium and
Can Be Perceived, Reproduced and Otherwise
Communicated..............................................................................11
3. Kelley Seeks Protection of His Artistic Expression, Not
the System Supporting It.............................................................15
C. 17 U.S.C. § 113(d)(1) Is Inapplicable to Wildflower Works...................
1 7
1. Wildflower Works Is Neither Incorporated in Nor Made
Part of the Monroe Street Parking Garage................................. 18
2. Wildflower Works Was Removable from Its Location ................ 19
3. Kelley Did Not Consent to the Incorporation of Wildflower
Works into the Monroe Street Parking Garage ..........................21
D. Chapman Kelley Did Not Waive His VARA Rights for
Wildflower Works Through His Permit with the Chicago Park
District................................................................................. ....................21
11
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...