Hayden v. Koons

Background

Michael A. Hayden sued Jeff Koons and Jeff Koons LLC under the Copyright Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). Hayden sought summary judgment, which is a ruling without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that matters to the result. The defendants opposed Hayden’s motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Hayden also filed a letter motion seeking permission to request reconsideration of the scope of available damages.

In 1988, Hayden created a sculpture depicting a giant serpent wrapped around a pedestal of boulders. He sold the sculpture to Diva Futura for $900 in cash. Koons later used the sculpture, or portions of it, in photographs and incorporated depictions of it into three works from the Made in Heaven series: the Made in Heaven billboard, Jeff and Ilona (Made in Heaven), and Jeff in the Position of Adam. Hayden learned about the Koons works in 2019 and registered the original sculpture with the U.S. Copyright Office that year.

Copyright claim and statute of limitations

The Copyright Act generally requires an infringement action to be filed within three years after the claim accrues. Under the Second Circuit’s discovery rule, a claim accrues when the copyright holder discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the infringement.

The court concluded that Hayden’s copyright claim was time-barred. Although Hayden said he did not learn of the Koons works until 2019, the court concluded that a reasonably diligent person in his position should have discovered the alleged infringement earlier. The court relied on Hayden’s long residence in Italy, his fluency in Italian, his consumption of Italian news, his prior work with Ilona Staller, Staller’s prominence in Italy, the 1990 Venice Biennale premiere of one of the Koons works, and publicity surrounding Koons and Staller. The court also considered the nearly three-decade period before Hayden’s discovery. It found no genuine dispute of material fact preventing resolution of the limitations issue.

The court denied Hayden’s motion for summary judgment on the copyright claim and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim.

VARA claim

VARA protects certain artists’ attribution and other personal interests in qualifying works of visual art. For works created before VARA’s June 1, 1991 effective date, the statute applies only if title to the physical copy had not been transferred from the author before that date.

The court interpreted “title” in this provision to mean ownership of the physical copy, not ownership of copyright or other intellectual-property rights. Because Hayden created the sculpture in 1988 and sold the physical work to Diva Futura that year, the court concluded that he had transferred title before VARA took effect. The court therefore concluded that VARA did not cover the sculpture.

The court denied Hayden’s motion for summary judgment on the VARA claim and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim.

DMCA claim

The DMCA prohibits knowingly providing or distributing false copyright-management information with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement. The court concluded that Hayden’s DMCA claim was moot, meaning that there was no live dispute requiring relief, because the copyright-infringement claim was time-barred and therefore there was no actionable infringement for the alleged false information to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal.

The court denied Hayden’s motion for summary judgment on the DMCA claim and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim.

Reconsideration request and disposition

The court denied Hayden’s letter motion for permission to seek reconsideration of the scope of damages because the copyright claim was time-barred. In its conclusion, the court denied Hayden’s motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied Hayden’s letter motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Judge Timothy M. Reif directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open motions.