INTRODUCTION: MARY MISS V. DES MOINES ART CENTER- 1209
I. GREENWOOD POND PROJECT PLANNING: THE CONTRACT- 1213

II: ©ONTRASTS AND ©ONFUSION: GREENWOOD POND,CLOUDGATE, AND THE VIETNAM WAR MEMORIAL – 1220

III. RETHINKING ART, ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPES,
AND COPYRIGHT – 1234
A. Refining the Issues – 1234
B. Proposed Statutory Revisions 1242
C. Objections to the Proposed Amendments – 1247
1. Design Patents, Industrial Designs, Copyright and Market Dominance – 1247
2. Historic Preservation and Moral Right – 1249

CONCLUSION – 1250

This article arises from the saga of the construction and eventual destruction of a landmark landscape architectural work by the well-known artist Mary Miss that was constructed adjacent to the Des Moines Art Center called Greenwood Pond: Double Site. The project’s demise is emblematic of the remarkably ambiguous copyright problems that surround such artistic creations. They do not neatly fit into any category of copyrightable works. Though they may contain sculptural works, their overall designs are rarely totally sculptural. While architects typically draw plans and “sculpt” a landscaped space, the results usually are not “buildings,’ as required by the definition of architecture in the copyright code. For purposes of moral rights protection, they are rarely works of “visual art” as mandated by the statute. In short they are in a copyright black hole, presenting work that may be just as creative and worthy of protection as art, sculpture, and architecture, but lacking intellectual property recognition. After surveying the surprising status of landscape architecture, I suggest some changes to the copyright code to ameliorate problems.