Legal Battle Erupts Over Queen Portraits Commissioned by Jersey

A legal dispute has emerged concerning two holographic portraits of the late Queen Elizabeth II, commissioned by Jersey Heritage. Holographer Rob Munday is suing artist Chris Levine, claiming he is a co-creator of the artworks entitled Equanimity and Lightness of Being. The portraits were developed from sittings with the Queen at Buckingham Palace in 2003 and 2004.

Munday asserts that Levine has misrepresented their collaboration, portraying himself as the sole author of the portraits. He alleges a “deliberate campaign of misrepresentation,” stating that Levine acknowledged his technical assistance but failed to credit him as a co-creator. Munday’s legal action coincides with the recent resolution of a separate legal matter between Levine and Jersey Heritage, which he claims has further complicated his position.

Munday has criticized Levine’s account in the book Inner Light, arguing it contains “misleading and factually inaccurate” information that minimizes his contributions. He further contends that he assigned his copyright to Jersey Heritage under the false impression that Levine would do the same.

Levine has yet to submit a formal defense against Munday’s claims but has publicly refuted the accusations. In a statement to The Guardian, he insisted, “Mr Munday does not hold any copyright in Equanimity or Lightness of Being. Jersey Heritage Trust, who commissioned the work, have publicly confirmed that I was the sole commissioned artist.”

The portraits were commissioned to commemorate Jersey’s 800-year allegiance to the crown, highlighting their significance beyond mere artistic value. Munday’s decision to pursue legal action follows the confirmation from Jersey Heritage that Levine is recognized as the sole artist, while Munday is listed only as a creative collaborator.

As this legal battle unfolds, it raises questions about the nature of artistic collaboration and the rights of those involved in the creative process. The outcome may have broader implications for artists and collaborators in similar situations, emphasizing the need for clear agreements in creative partnerships.

The case continues to develop, and both parties are expected to present their arguments in the coming months.