This article wants to introduce the Visual Artists Rights Act in U.S. Through the introduction, we can understand the protection scope of moral rights in U.S. copyright law. And I will introduce some important cases to let us know it’s real practices. The cases I introduce includes Pollara v. Seymour, NASCAR v. Scharle, Martin v. City of Indianapolis, Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate. Most of these cases involved the display issues of big art captures. I also will focus on the federal 1st Circuit Court opinion in Mass. Museum of Contemporary Art Found., Inc. v. Büchel (2010). From the opinion, we can find that if the art museum and the artist didn’t agree with their rights and obligations by contract ex ante, the copyright disputes will arise. After introducing the law and cases in U.S., I will discuss some implications for Taiwan. I argue three points. First, the protection of moral rights in Taiwan in more than in U.S., but that will be harmful to creation inventers. Second, there is no public disclosure right in U.S. copyright law, but the court by judgment expand the protection scope to cover the public disclosure right. Like U.S., there is some kind similar case judgment in Taiwan, and I will criticize this situation. Third, if art museum and artist want avoid disputes, they should agree with both rights and obligations in detail by contract before the exhibition playing. I suggest six issues should be agreed with in the contract: 1. Who is the author. 2. Who owns the copyrights. 3. The disclosure problem in the process of installs the creature. 4. Who owns the original creation works. 5. Agreement to modify the creature for the exhibition. 6. How to handle the creature after the exhibition.