The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in Carter v. Helmsley-Spear Inc. that the removal of a sculptural work that is incorporated in the lobby of an office building would violate the rights of the artists under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), which provides "that the author of a work of visual art has the right to prevent intentional alteration of the work that would prejudice the artist's honor or reputation, and to prevent destruction of a work of recognized stature." Sculptures are defined as works of visual art and VARA protects works of visual art that are permanently installed in buildings. Works made for hire are not protected by VARA.

In December 1991, the artists contracted with the building management to design and install a sculpture in the building lobby. The artists were given "full authority in design, color and style" of the work, and were to receive design credit and own the copyright in the work. The artists created a mosaic covering parts of the walls and the floor. Sculptural elements were also attached to the ceiling and floor.

A little over two years later, the building management was changed. The artists were ordered to "leave the property" and it was indicated that the sculptural work would either be removed or altered. The artists filed suit under VARA to prevent the removal or alteration of the work and to be able to maintain access to the work. The court found that the sculpture was a work of visual art and not "applied art", which is two and three-dimensional ornamentation that is affixed to a utilitarian object, as was argued by the building management and the building owner and thus, VARA applied. The court also found that the sculpture was not a work for hire and the artists were independent contractors based inter alia on the facts that the artists owned the copyright, had control of the design and "the creation of art works was not part of the hiring party's regular business nor a pursuit necessary to the accomplishment of the hiring party's business objectives."

After consideration of evidence attesting to the artists' reputation, the court stated that the artists "possess honor and reputations worthy of protection" and that the artists' reputations would be damaged by "intentional distortion, mutilation or modification of the work".

The court stated that to establish that the visual art is of recognized stature, it must be shown that the visual art in question has stature and that the "stature is recognized by art experts, other members of the artistic community, or by some cross section of society." The court found that the sculpture met the requirements of the VARA and held that the artists were entitled to an injunction prohibiting distortion, mutilation or modification of the work.