IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Ill.: Jury must decide most issues in dispute between artist and retailer, (Apr 3, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

A jury trial is needed to decide whether a religious-themed retailer infringed copyrights and breached a licensing agreement with greeting cards, journals, and bookmarks for works of artist Art Akiane.

In a copyright infringement lawsuit following a breakdown in the business relationship between the licensing entity for artist Art Akiane—best known for her Prince of Peace portrait—and a retailer, the federal district court in Illinois has held that a jury trial must decide most of the issues. In largely denying motions for summary judgment, the court held that a jury must decide the copyright infringement claims. The court concluded a reasonable jury could find that the artist consented to the creation and display of certain works, or the jury could also reject the notion that religious-themed retailer Art & Soulworks LLC had implicit, unwritten consent to use the works (Art Akiane LLC v. Art & SoulWorks LLC, No. 1:19-cv-02952 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026)).

At just eight years old, Akiane Kramarik completed her most famous work of art, a portrait of Jesus Christ entitled Prince of Peace. The portrait led to Akiane’s artwork being featured in gallery exhibitions around the world as well as talk show appearances and other publicity. Since then, Akiane has produced at least 13 other works that are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The artist’s licensing entity, Art Akiane, LLC, entered into a licensing agreement with a religious-themed retailer, Art & Soulworks LLC. Under the agreement, the retailer reproduced the artist’s artwork on certain products like greeting cards, journals, and bookmarks. In return, the artist received royalties.

After the licensing agreement expired, the artist brought a lawsuit alleging that Art & Soulworks misused the artist’s artistic paintings, engaged in unlicensed reproductions of her artworks, and breached the terms of the licensing agreement. The complaint alleges statutory claims under the Copyright Act, Lanham Act, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Practices Act, and the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, alongside common law claims of unjust enrichment, unfair competition, and breach of contract. The retailer filed counterclaim for violation of DMCA takedown procedure.

The court entered a preliminary injunction directing the retailer to scrub its social media and website to remove posts that might feature and create a false appearance of association with Akiane, her likeness, and her artwork. The parties then moved for partial summary judgment on a variety of issues.

Preemption. The court concluded that the common law claims for unfair competition and the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act are not preempted by the Copyright Act because the state law claims include an extra element that changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim. The court, however, found that the Copyright Act preempts the unjust enrichment claims. Therefore, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claims.

Statute of Limitations. The court denied the retailer’s motion for partial summary judgment based on a statute of limitations defense. The court held that a jury must decide when the artist learned or reasonably should have learned of the alleged copyright, DMCA, and breach of contract violations. The court applied the three-year statute of limitations period for the copyright infringement claims and the six-year statute of limitations period for the breach of contract claims under Colorado law for the licensing agreement.

Copyright infringement. As to the merits of the copyright infringement claims, the court concluded that a jury must decide the issues. The court found there is a genuine dispute of material fact on whether the oral agreements authorized the printing and wholesale purchases of Akiane related works outside the terms of the license. A reasonable jury could find that the artist consented to the creation and display of certain works. In the alternative, a jury could reject the notion that the retailer had implicit, unwritten consent to use the works. As to framed postcards and wallet cards, a reasonable jury could find that the artist consented to the creation and display of these montages well before the filing of the lawsuit. The question of copyright infringement liability for montage posts during the license must be made by a jury at trial.

DCMA claims. The court also held that a jury must decide the DCMA claims. The artist alleges DMCA claims for the unlawful alteration of copyright management information (CMI). The court found factual issues whether the retailer had the required mental state for the DCMA claims. The artist’s arguable lack of persistent enforcement of CMI integrity during the license creates a genuine factual dispute on the requisite mental state.

Anti-Cybersquatting. The retailer scored one partial victory with the court entering partial summary judgment on the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act claim. The artist claims that the retailer violated the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by using the domain names: facebook.com/jesusprinceofpeace and jesusprinceofpeace.com/. Because the artist and her licensing entity cannot demonstrate the ownership of a valid trademark in the title “Prince of Peace,” the court granted summary judgement on the Anti-Cybersquatting claim in favor of the retailer.

Counterclaims. The court granted the artist’s motion for summary judgment against the retailer’s counterclaim for violation of DMCA takedown procedure. No reasonable jury could find that the retailer suffered any harm caused by artist’s DMCA takedown notices. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the artist on the other counterclaims.

Modified preliminary injunction. Finally, the court modified the preliminary injunction and denied a motion for contempt. The modified preliminary injunction ordered the retailer to remove from its website and social media pages all images of Akiane’s artwork that are not for sale or are sold out, including specific framed versions of Akiane artwork that are no longer available.

Therefore, the court held that a jury trial must decide most issues. The court denied, in part, and granted, in part, the cross motions for summary judgment.

The Case is No. 1:19-cv-02952.

Judge: Chang, E.

Attorneys: Richard Eric Gaum (Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP) for Art Akiane LLC. Nicole Nehama Auerbach (Elevatenext Law) for Art & Soulworks LLC.

Companies: Art Akiane LLC; Art & Soulworks LLC

MainStory: TopStory Copyright IllinoisNews GCNNews