Crimi v. Rutgers Presbyterian Church
89 N.Y.S.2d 813, 194 Misc. 570, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2347 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent a contractual reservation of rights, an artist has no legal interest, under the doctrine of 'moral rights' or otherwise, to prevent the owner from altering or destroying a work of art after an unconditional sale, particularly when the work has been affixed to and becomes part of real property.
Facts:
- In 1937, Rutgers Presbyterian Church commissioned Alfred D. Crimi to design and execute a large fresco mural on the rear chancel wall of its church.
- On February 4, 1938, Crimi and the church signed a contract for the work, which specified the completed mural would become part of the church building.
- The contract also required Crimi to assign the mural's copyright to the church, which he did upon completion.
- The mural was completed, paid for in full, and dedicated in November 1938.
- Over time, some parishioners expressed disapproval of the mural's depiction of Christ with a bare chest.
- In 1946, during a redecoration of the church, the congregation's leadership had the mural completely painted over without notifying Crimi.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon discovering the mural had been painted over, artist Alfred D. Crimi sued the Rutgers Presbyterian Church in a New York court.
- Crimi sought equitable relief, requesting an order to either compel the church to restore the mural, permit him to remove it at the church's expense, or award monetary damages.
- The action was referred to an Official Referee to hear and determine the case, which functioned as a trial on the merits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an artist, after the unconditional sale of a work of art that is affixed to a building, retain a right to prevent the owner from destroying or altering it, under the doctrine of 'moral rights' or industry custom?
Opinions:
Majority - Charles C. Lockwood, Official Referee
No. An artist does not retain the right to prevent the destruction of their work after an unconditional sale. The American legal system has not adopted the 'droit moral' (moral right) doctrine, which protects an artist's reputational interest in the integrity of a work post-sale. The court reasoned that when an artist unconditionally sells a work, all rights transfer to the buyer unless explicitly reserved in the contract. Citing precedents like Vargas v. Esquire, Inc. and Yardley v. Houghton Mifflin Co., the court affirmed that a contract for a painting is essentially a service contract, and upon delivery and payment, the artist retains no rights. Furthermore, because the fresco mural was permanently affixed to the wall, it became part of the real estate, meaning any claimed interest by the artist would have to be in writing to comply with the Real Property Law, which was not done here.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in American art law, firmly rejecting the European doctrine of 'droit moral' or moral rights at the time. It established that traditional principles of property and contract law supersede an artist's personal or reputational interest in the preservation of their work after an unconditional sale. The ruling placed the burden squarely on artists to negotiate and include specific clauses in their contracts if they wish to protect their work from alteration or destruction. While this common law position has since been modified by the federal Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), this case remains a landmark illustration of the traditional American view of art as property first and foremost.
