Update on the Copyright of Minerva Teichert’s Art

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perhaps the single largest owner of Minerva Teichert’s art. They certainly own the most prominent and well-known works of art she ever created. In July of 2023 the Church opened a year-long exhibit of Minerva Teichert’s art in Salt Lake City. Before opening it to the public, members of the Teichert family were invited to a private pre-opening of the entire exhibit. Many of Minerva Teichert’s descendants came to see the collection. The family expressed overwhelming feelings of love and appreciation for the marvelous presentation of Minerva’s work. “It was a remarkable privilege to have members of the Teichert family visit the museum and enjoy the beautiful works of Minerva Teichert ” said museum director Riley M. Lorimer.

However, Tim Teichert, a grandson of the late Latter-day Saint artist Minerva Teichert, claiming to represent the estate of Minerva Teichert is now suing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as BYU, the BYU Museum of Art, Deseret Book and others for what he feels is a copyright infringement.

The Church’s Response

“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,”

BYU’s Response

“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.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides beautiful canvas prints of Minerva Teichert’s art wholesale to many galleries, stores and online businesses like ours.

Our Gallery Opinion

We are not lawyers, but we have been in the art business for over 30 years and so here is our opinion. After almost 85 years of many people purchasing and enjoying copies of Minerva Teichert’s art, and almost 50 years after the artist’s death, the Teichert Estate, for the first time ever has registered copyrights of her work in 2018. They have since used these new registration numbers in legal filings seemingly as evidence of copyright ownership - and seem to claim that they only recently became aware that copies of the art was being sold by several entities, even though they’ve been sold for decades and even members of the Teichert family have worked for the galleries selling the art and have themselves published books with her art.

In addition to this, the newly appointed head of the estate has also filed for a trademark of Minerva Teichert’s name, even though her name has already been in use for almost 100 years by countless organizations, businesses, book publishers, art galleries and museums. Again, several other members of the Teichert family have used her name to sell art and conduct business. In fact today there are numerous businesses, art publishers, museums, retail stores and galleries using the artist’s name to con, books and otherwise conduct business. This makes the trademark almost impossible to defend and will likely lead to unsuccessful lawsuits.

Lastly, Minerva Teichert loaned, gave or painted on commission much of her artwork to/or for many businesses, local governments, churches, private parties and other organizations. According the Copyright Act of 1909 which covered her art all the way until 1962 she had already forfeited copyright protection by giving the art away or loaning the art so it could be exhibited in public buildings without the then legally required notice of valid copyright which was to be attached to the art. Below are a few examples of the art we feel is in the public domain (public domain means there is no copyright and anyone can make copies for any purpose . . . including commercial.)

The 1909 Copyright act ONLY granted protection to works published with a valid copyright notice affixed to the art or copies of the art. Published works without proper notice fell immediately into the public domain. The definition of “Published Works” did not include the artist displaying their art privately in their home. Published was defined as printing photos of the work in any periodical, advertisement, books or newspapers - loaning or giving the art away for displaying in publicly accessible galleries, exhibits, buildings or shows, or creating copies of the art for either selling of giving away.

RESCUE OF THE LOST LAMB: Painted in late 1938 or early 1939, this piece was loaned to Z.C.M.I. (Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution) on February 28, 1939 for an art exhibit in the Tiffan Room of the store’s downtown location in Salt Lake City. Neither the original painting nor the accompanying ZCMI brochures featuring the art together with the Deseret Newspaper advertisements had the legally required valid copyright notice affixed. According to the Copyright Act of 1909, the art therefore fell into the public domain in 1939. It was subsequently loaned for further display and eventually given to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where it remained on exhibit in church buildings . When the copyright laws began to be amended in 1962, for the first time since 1909, the painting Rescue of the Lost Lamb was already long established as being in the public domain and was not entitled to further protection. In fact in 1976 the copyright laws were amended yet again and anything that had bonafide copyright protection was retroactively protected back to 1962. However, by this time, Rescue of the Lost Lamb was already in the public domain, and to this day it remains so.

CHRIST IN HIS RED ROBE: Painted In 1945. That same year Teichert wrote to her daughter about painting Christ in His Red Robe, saying: “This Christ painting pleases me. It’s just what I’d hoped.” When finished, Teichert’s Christ in a Red Robe was, like Rescue of the Lost Lamb above loaned or given to be exhibited in a publicly accessible building, in this case the Denver First Ward meetinghouse of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without the valid copyright notice affixed. Church periodicals and news showed photos of the art without the valid copyright notice affixed. Thus, like most of her artwork during this time, it too instantly went into the public domain.

NOT ALONE: Painted in 1920. This painting was not only put on display as a mural in a church building, but it was created at the request of a Church Stake President for that purpose. Not only was there no valid copyright notice affixed to the art from the beginning, but even if there were, Minerva Teichert would have been required by law to renew that copyright in 1948, which was never done. This means that the art was still in the public domain well before any future amendments and would not have qualified for copyright protection anyway. Yet, this is one of the pieces of which the estate is claiming they own the copyright and is mentioned in their lawsuit.

COKEVILLE, WY WARD ART: There are two arguments for the art that Minerva Teichert had placed in the Cokeville, WY ward. Tim Teichert seems to believe that they were to remain in that building or given back to the family. But the argument that they are copyrighted falls under the same conditions as the two above ( Rescue of the Lost Lamb and Christ in a Red Robe)

The 1976 update to the copyright law created copyright protection for artwork that lasted 50 years after the life of the artist and retroactively applied it back to 1960 only for art that was already copyrighted and not in the public domain. Subsequent revisions to the copyright laws have extended and expanded protections for art, but again, only for pieces with bonafide copyrights in existence and those pieces that have not fallen into the public domain. Since much of her work, including her most well-known pieces were already in the public domain at the time of the 1976 amendment, it would not have applied.

Minerva Teichert herself had a wonderful and lifelong relationship with the church and BYU. She even paid tuition for her descendants by donating paintings to BYU. Where many members of the Teichert family are happy with the preservation and proliferation of Minerva Teichert’s art it’s hard to understand what this lawsuit serves.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues to display and sell copies of Minerva Teichert’s art. Business owners that sell art, such as galleries, retail stores and websites like ours can purchase Minerva Teichert’s art at wholesale from the Church and re-sell her art. Again, we are not lawyers, but we feel her work is in the public domain and we operate under that opinion because of the ample evidence demonstrating that it is.