Digital Editions
Newsletters
Subscribe
Digital Editions
Newsletters
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Law
news

Publishing company American Image Art strikes back in Robert Indiana case

Defendants in the much-publicised lawsuit allege the Morgan Art Foundation “duped” the US artist into giving up certain rights to his art

Laura Gilbert
27 July 2018
Share
Questions hang over Robert Indiana's legacy as legal battle intensifies © Joel Greenberg

Questions hang over Robert Indiana's legacy as legal battle intensifies © Joel Greenberg

The publishing firm American Image Art and its founder, Michael McKenzie, have hit back in the much-publicised lawsuit that accuses them of unleashing at least $30m-worth of Robert Indiana forgeries on the market.

The suit, filed by the Morgan Art Foundation the day before the artist died in May, accuses McKenzie of exploiting the increasingly infirm artist, forging his works, and damaging his market and reputation with inferior forgeries. But the defendants filed counterclaims on 13 July giving a sharply different version of events. They allege Morgan “duped” Indiana into ceding certain rights to his art and “attempted to wrest control of Indiana’s artworks through intimidation and lies”.

The defendants’ inflammatory allegations have heated up the dispute. “These counterclaims are full of lies. They amount to nothing more than an unsuccessful and desperate effort to distract from the devastating allegations in Morgan’s complaint”, says Morgan’s lawyer Luke Nikas.

A third defendant, Jamie Thomas, Indiana's long-time assistant, filed an answer to the complaint generally denying any wrongdoing. Thomas obtained Indiana's power of attorney in 2016 and Morgan alleges he was a co-conspirator.

Essential to Morgan’s complaint are two contracts between Indiana and Morgan. According to the complaint, one contract gives Morgan the copyright and trademark to all images and sculpture Indiana produced between 1960 and 2004 and the exclusive right to reproduce and sell the images, in exchange for 50% of the net income. Under a second contract, Morgan has the exclusive right in to fabricate and sell certain sculptures, including Indiana’s famous LOVE, in exchange for 20% of the sale price. Morgan claims the defendants violated these rights by reproducing and selling work protected under its contracts, some of which are forgeries.

Indiana worked with American Image on certain works after 2004, not covered by the contracts. One was HOPE, produced in 2008 when Barack Obama was running for president. According to Morgan, Indiana didn’t approve of some renditions and said McKenzie “forced him into approving HOPE through emotional abuse and intimidation”. Morgan’s claim says Indiana disavowed other works the defendants made and sold and that Indiana said he was afraid of McKenzie, who would “do things without even asking”.

The defendants say Morgan rarely compensated Indiana under the contracts and that Indiana complained about it. Characterising the lawsuit as “egregiously frivolous,” the defendants accuse Morgan of making such “salacious claims” to divert attention from its failure to pay Indiana.

“That’s false”, Morgan paid Indiana in full, says Nikas.

The defendants claim Morgan disparaged work it didn’t control the rights to, trying to increase the value of its own holdings, and it wanted to keep Indiana in “economic servitude”. Morgan’s agent “just wants to control me”, Indiana is alleged to have said. Nikas says that by identifying questionable work, Morgan is trying to preserve Indiana’s legacy.

Far from being afraid of McKenzie, as Morgan alleges, the defendants claim Indiana instead feared Morgan. Indiana thought Morgan stole some works loaned for exhibitions and was afraid to loan others because Morgan might steal them, the defendants say. They also allege Morgan made 100 bronze sculptures cast from Indiana’s work with Brian Ramnarine, who was convicted in 2014 of forging Indiana’s works. Not true, says Nikas–Ramnarine’s work was independent of Morgan.

The defendants seek, among other things, a declaration they didn’t violate Morgan’s copyright, an injunction against Morgan’s claiming they forged Indiana’s work and damages for defamation. A 23 July conference set a discovery cutoff date of 21 December.

LawArtistsControversies
Share
Subscribe to The Art Newspaper’s digital newsletter for your daily digest of essential news, views and analysis from the international art world delivered directly to your inbox.
Newsletter sign-up
Information
About
Contact
Cookie policy
Data protection
Privacy policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscription T&Cs
Terms and conditions
Advertise
Sister Papers
Sponsorship policy
Follow us
Instagram
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
TikTok
YouTube
© The Art Newspaper

Related content

Robert Indiananews
29 April 2020

Robert Indiana’s LOVE at centre of new $150m fraud claim

American Image Art founder alleges certain works are in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted

Anny Shaw
Robert Indiananews
3 July 2019

Robert Indiana latest: New York judge dismisses majority of counterclaims made by artist’s estate against Morgan Art Foundation

Allegations that the foundation underpaid Indiana and fabricated unauthorised reproductions of his work were rejected this week

Anny Shaw