Minerva Teichert estate sues The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU Museum of Art

[smac97]

From the Daily Universe:

Quote

Tim Teichert, a grandson of the late Latter-day Saint artist Minerva Teichert, is suing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as BYU and the BYU Museum of Art for copyright infringement.

In a complaint filed on Jan. 30, Tim Teichert accused the Church and affiliated organizations of having “knowingly reproduced, distributed and displayed Minerva Teichert’s paintings without her or the Teichert Estate’s permission.”

The lawsuit, filed in California, states that the Church and its affiliated organizations have “mass reproduced, distributed and/or sold prints or other reproductions of Minerva Teichert’s paintings without authorization, and continues to do so.” The Church History Museum Store and the BYU Museum of Art Store both sell prints of Teichert’s work.

This is not the first time Tim Teichert has sued the Church.  See here: Minerva Teichert's Grandson's Lawsuit Against the Church

This other suit, originally filed in state court and later removed (transferred to) federal court in Wyoming, appears to be inactive, as there have been no filings since January 2022.

Quote

Minerva Teichert’s estate received the copyright registration for 31 pieces of her artwork throughout 2021 and 2022. Tim Teichert’s 2023 complaint specifies seven individual paintings that he believes the Church History Museum Store has unlawfully reproduced and distributed, as well as seven in the BYU Museum of Art Store and two by Deseret Book. Several of the most popular paintings in question are Minerva Teichert’s “Christ in the Red Robe,” “Rescue of the Lost Lamb” and “Queen Esther.”

Since becoming representative of Minerva Teichert’s estate in 2018, Tim Teichert has sought the rights to Minerva Teichert’s work. Tim Teichert first sued the Church in 2021, arguing that Minerva Teichert “never gave the Church or the local Church buildings/congregations authorization to do anything other than display her paintings, with certain conditions,” according to the 2021 complaint filed by Tim Teichert in the state of Wyoming.

Both the 2021 and 2023 complaints refer to original Minerva Teichert paintings in a Cokeville, Wyoming Latter-say Daint meetinghouse. Minerva Teichert attended church at the Cokeville meetinghouse for much of her adult life and donated four of her original paintings to the building where they were on display from 1955-2014.

According to the 2023 complaint, the Church informed members of the Teichert family that it planned on relocating the Cokeville meetinghouse paintings to temples and other Church buildings as a means of preserving them. Although Tim Teichert and other Teichert family members opposed the removal of the artwork “The Song of Quetzalcoatl,” one of the Cokeville paintings, it was removed and placed in the Star Valley Wyoming temple.

In addition to the removal of “The Song of Quetzalcoatl”, Tim Teichert alleged in the 2023 complaint that the Church removed the rest of the original paintings from the Cokeville meetinghouse during the COVID-19 pandemic, while the building was empty, and replaced them with corresponding prints. The complaint also states that the Teicherts believe the Church “has relocated additional paintings by Minerva Teichert without the authorization of Minerva Teichert or the Teichert Estate.”

Interesting, though unfortunate, stuff.

Quote

Representing the estate of Minerva Teichert, Tim Teichert requested in the 2023 complaint that the Church and its affiliates immediately and permanently discontinue current copyright infringements, relinquish all inventory and versions of the disputed works, present the Teichert estate with a report and accounting of all the revenue generated by the disputed works and grant the estate monetary damages for the copyright infringement.

The Church denies Tim Teichert’s allegations and claims to own both the paintings and copyrights to the artwork in question.

“The work of Minerva Teichert is loved and admired around the world.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns both the paintings and copyrights to the artwork in question. The Church will continue to defend those interests as the case moves through the legal process so that we may preserve and protect this artwork for generations to come,” Sam Penrod, a representative for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement.

Carri Jenkins, assistant to the president of BYU University Communications, said BYU believes the complaint to be unfounded and is committed to defending their interests as the case moves forward to preserve Minerva Teichert’s work:

Quote

“For decades, BYU has enjoyed positive relationships with many members of the Teichert family, including Minerva Teichert herself. No organization has done more to celebrate and recognize this artist and her artwork than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and BYU. BYU and the Church own the paintings and the copyrights to the artwork identified in the lawsuit. The use of the artwork in question by the BYU Museum of Art has been in accordance with standard legal agreements and ethical best practices. As the Church has stated, we ‘will defend (our) interests as the case moves through the legal process so that we may preserve this artwork for generations to come.'”

Lawyers for Tim Teichert could not be reached for comment.

Minerva Teichert was a famous 20th-century artist celebrated for her depictions of Western and religious subjects. She was a devoted member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and became popular in the Church community for her illustrations of scriptural and pioneer events. Teichert donated many of her pieces to the Church and BYU throughout her life, with BYU even accepting paintings in place of tuition for some of her descendants.

I will be interested to see what happens with these.  Certainly the Church and BYU must be held to the same normative standards of the law as any other party.  And though unlikely, it's not inconceivable that BYU has erred in terms of ownership, copyright, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

There was actually an update in December on the original trial

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60089248/teichert-v-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

But it seems to be mainly case timing planning (will be a while before the actual trial if it gets there)

[ksfisher]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will be interested to see what happens with these.  Certainly the Church and BYU must be held to the same normative standards of the law as any other party.  And though unlikely, it's not inconceivable that BYU has erred in terms of ownership, copyright, etc.

My wife works for the church and deals with copyright issues from time to time.  Not on the legal end, but in ensuring that the proper permissions have been obtained for using images.  The church has some fairly exacting processes in place for making sure that everything is done properly.  It surprises me that the church would use images without the permission of the copyright holder.  I'm very interested in hearing the churches response and learning if there is more to the story.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the Daily Universe:

This is not the first time Tim Teichert has sued the Church.  See here: Minerva Teichert's Grandson's Lawsuit Against the Church

This other suit, originally filed in state court and later removed (transferred to) federal court in Wyoming, appears to be inactive, as there have been no filings since January 2022.

Interesting, though unfortunate, stuff.

I will be interested to see what happens with these.  Certainly the Church and BYU must be held to the same normative standards of the law as any other party.  And though unlikely, it's not inconceivable that BYU has erred in terms of ownership, copyright, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

How sure are we that the plaintiff does represent Teichert’s estate and to what extent, legally or otherwise? There must be dozens of Teichert progeny by now. Are they all onboard with what this grandson is doing?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My wife works for the church and deals with copyright issues from time to time.  Not on the legal end, but in ensuring that the proper permissions have been obtained for using images.  The church has some fairly exacting processes in place for making sure that everything is done properly.  It surprises me that the church would use images without the permission of the copyright holder.  I'm very interested in hearing the churches response and learning if there is more to the story.

Didn’t the Church go through something similar to this a while back with regard to the Arnold Friberg Book of Mormon paintings?

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

There was actually an update in December on the original trial

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60089248/teichert-v-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

But it seems to be mainly case timing planning (will be a while before the actual trial if it gets there)

Here is a link to the Church's "Answer" to the Amended Complaint in the Wyoming litigation.  Among other things, the Church A) states that all paintings in dispute "were the subject of complete conveyance of all right, title and interest to {the Church}," and B) denies that the Teichert estate has any legitimate copyright interest in the paintings in dispute.

I doubt the Church's attorneys would make such assertions in writing unless there were really solid legal grounds to do so.

On a somewhat unrelated note, the signature line of the Answer designates the Church as "THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, FKA {FORMERLY KNOWN AS} CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, AND FKA {FORMERLY KNOWN AS} CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS."

The entity currently showing on the Utah "Business Entity Search" website as "active" under the name "CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, THE" has a specific entity number (553976-0145), is listed as a "Corporation - Sole," is designated as "Active as of 07/13/1916," is designated under the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) coding scheme as "9999-Nonclassifiable Establishment," is listed as having a "former" name of "CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS," and also has the following as current DBAs ("doing business as"):

• CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
• MILLENNIAL STAR NETWORK
• VERNON UTAH LIVESTOCK
• MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICE
• SALT LAKE MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR, THE
• FARM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
• DESERET TRANSPORTATION
• LATTER-DAY SAINT PHILANTHROPIES
• BEEHIVE CLOTHING
• DESERET INDUSTRIES
• TABERNACLE CHOIR AT TEMPLE SQUARE, THE
• DESERET SOAP
• ELBERTA VALLEY AG.
• MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR
• DESERET PASTA
• JOSEPH SMITH MEMORIAL BUILDING
• LDS PHILANTHROPIES
• CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, THE
• LATTER-DAY SAINT HUMANITARIAN CENTER

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Didn’t the Church go through something similar to this a while back with regard to the Arnold Friberg Book of Mormon paintings?

I don't recall.  A quick google search doesn't bring up anything.

Edited February 8, 2023 by ksfisher

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Didn’t the Church go through something similar to this a while back with regard to the Arnold Friberg Book of Mormon paintings?

I know the Captain Moroni one was part of the January 6 fiasco. (bottom of page 7 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.233379/gov.uscourts.dcd.233379.1.1_2.pdf )

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I know the Captain Moroni one was part of the January 6 fiasco. (bottom of page 7 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.233379/gov.uscourts.dcd.233379.1.1_2.pdf )

Not what I had in mind. 
 

I thought it was something similar to the Teichert case with a family member making a claim against the Church for money owed. But I can’t find anything on it at the moment. 

[california boy]

Does and artist still own the copyright when they sell an artwork?

 

 

The duration of copyright in the United States is currently the life of the author, plus 70 years. Title to the artwork passes to the client or commissioning agency/organization upon their written acceptance of and payment for the work, but copyright belongs to and remains with the artist. (or their estate)

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Does and artist still own the copyright when they sell an artwork?

 

The duration of copyright in the United States is currently the life of the author, plus 70 years. Title to the artwork passes to the client or commissioning agency/organization upon their written acceptance of and payment for the work, but copyright belongs to and remains with the artist. (or their estate)

Copyright, just like any other property, can be transferred from the owner to another.

If the Church is accurately reporting that the works in question "were the subject of complete conveyance of all right, title and interest," then the matter ought to be pretty much open-and-shut.

I guess we'll see.

 

[Maestrophil]

I wonder if this all stems form the smaller footprint of the Church in Sister T's time and that deals were likley done a bit more on a handshake back then - the CHurch has since, rightfully, had to become more beurocratic and proceedural, and this wouldn;t be the case today - but it might have been moreso back then?

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I wonder if this all stems form the smaller footprint of the Church in Sister T's time and that deals were likley done a bit more on a handshake back then - the CHurch has since, rightfully, had to become more beurocratic and proceedural, and this wouldn;t be the case today - but it might have been moreso back then?

I have thought of that as well.

Several years ago the Church announced plans to construct large multi-story buildings on the north side of the MTC in Provo.  A residential neighborhood is immediately adjacent to the MTC's northern boundary, and included several residents who had been there since the MTC was first constructed in the 70s.  As I recall, several of those folks reminded the Church that it had promised to not build tall buildings near their homes.  Nothing in writing, just verbal assurances.  Nevertheless, the Church apparently acquiesced and built the large buildings on the south side of the MTC campus instead.

If the Church was occasionally operating on spit-and-a-handshake principles as recently as the 1970s, it may have been doing the same during Teichert's hey-day.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

Tim Teichert has at least hired a firm with experience in trademark and copyright law so it won't be a complete head-shaking-at-arguments suit like other recent ones have been.

court listener for this case https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66770853/tim-teichert-v-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Edited February 13, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[smac97]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints opens Minerva Teichert Exhibit amidst lawsuit

Quote

The Church History Museum opened a Minerva Teichert exhibit showcasing 45 of her paintings.

The exhibit, titled “With This Covenant in My Heart: The Art and Faith of Minerva Teichert,” will run from July 6, 2023, to August 3, 2024.

“The art of Minerva Teichert plays a significant role in the history of Latter-day Saint visual culture,” art curator Laura Paulsen Howe said. “And we’re grateful to have the opportunity to ensure her work will endure for future generations.”

Teichert was trained as a muralist, and her paintings “evidenced her desire to devote her daily activities to God,” the press release states. According to the Church, Teichert painted stories of the Savior, the restoration of His gospel, Old Testament themes like the gathering of Israel, Book of Mormon stories, and stories of the western United States.

The exhibit follows Teichert’s life and her artwork. Teichert and her husband raised a family on a cattle ranch in Cokeville, Wyoming. Several of her paintings were displayed at the Cokeville church meetinghouse where she worshiped (per verbal agreement with the local church leadership) and remained there until 2014 when they were relocated by the Church.

The removal of her work from the Cokeville meeting house brought controversy from some members of Teichert’s family. According to a lawsuit filed by Tim Teichert on behalf of the estate of Minerva Teichert, the loan of her paintings to the Church was a conditional gift, and as such, the removal of the Cokeville Paintings was an end to the conditional gift, and her paintings should have been returned to Teichert or her heirs.

According to the lawsuit, Teichert placed many of her paintings on loan to church meeting houses throughout Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. “Like the Cokeville Paintings, none of those conditional gifts or loans transferred ownership or other rights to the Church,” the lawsuit states.

No judgment has been assigned, so these claims are only allegations at this point in time.

However, other family members said they are no longer taking legal action for the rights of her work, and have “buried the hatchet.” In fact, before the exhibit was officially opened to the public, the Church held a pre-viewing, and four generations of Teichert’s descendants attended.

Her great-great-grandson said it was nice to get back in touch with part of his heritage through the lens of art in Teichert’s paintings. “It was a great night. Go see the exhibition when you can,” Errol Teichert said in a Facebook post.

The museum and museum store are open to the public Monday, Friday, and Saturday, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Admission is free. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

I saw that on the news. I wonder if the family is deserving of compensation or maybe they're happy that they are seen and are well preserved (hopefully no one can damage them) in a museum. 

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if the family is deserving of compensation

Why?  It's Minerva that did the painting.  Should I be compensated for things that my grandparents did?

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Why?  It's Minerva that did the painting.  Should I be compensated for things that my grandparents did?

Well, if it was their grandmother's home should the church own it? I do see how it's wonderful that everyone has a chance to view her beautiful work. 

The church has long had people donate their parents/grandparents land or ?

So nothing new. Wondering though if the art will be returned if the church no longer shows it or if things change in the future.

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, if it was their grandmother's home should the church own it? I do see how it's wonderful that everyone has a chance to view her beautiful work. 

The church has long had people donate their parents/grandparents land or ?

So nothing new. Wondering though if the art will be returned if the church no longer shows it or if things change in the future.

 

It seems like everything depends on whether the art was donated or loaned. It sounds like the issue is largely moot now though. 

[Emily]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Well, if it was their grandmother's home should the church own it? I do see how it's wonderful that everyone has a chance to view her beautiful work. 

From what the article says, the paintings weren't in the grandmother's home, they were in the meeting house she attended. That is, her ward building. I imagine the paintings were there for as long as she was attending, but a meeting house wasn't a great place for them to be kept, where they can easily be stolen, so they were moved after she passed.

It's likely the family was not even aware of the paintings and/or didn't have them in their consciousness until they heard they were moved. That probably triggered momentary desires for possession until logic kicked in. 

My husband does very good drawing artwork, and he's done a few very detailed drawings for our past wards that ended up being hung permanently in the buildings. We heard, a decade or so after we left one ward building, that the building was being remodeled or sold (can't remember which) and we wondered what would happen to the drawing we had left in the building. Upon asking around, no one knew anything about it, so it's likely gracing the wall of someone else's home. We also have no idea what happened to the other drawings.

There's a feeling of regret to not being able to retrieve his old work. His drawings aren't valuable, (all were copies of other artists' work) but he never draws anymore, so he doesn't have a lot of completed artwork to display. However, if we had really, truly cared, we would have taken the time to collect the drawings when we moved. 

I suspect the same thing is true of Sister Teichert. If she had wanted her family to have the paintings, she would have retrieved them before she died or made it clear to the ward leaders, in her will, or in some other written document that the paintings should go back to her estate on her death. She did not. So she either didn't care (unlikely) or directly wanted the church to have them. Second guessing her desires seems a bit counterproductive, and it's nice that everyone can enjoy the original artwork, instead of it being sold off to a private owner.

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Emily

[Pyreaux]

I'm really curious about what Minerva Teichert's “The Song of Quetzalcoatl” look like and whether I can buy a print and if I should before I can't.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Pyreaux