Case number 4:21-cv-0430 Fair Use or Infringement?

The following constitutes my detailed and comprehensive response to the press release issued by the Greenberg Traurig firm, as well as my attempt to set the record straight regarding the case Michel Keck v. Mix Creative Learning Center, LLC, et al., case number 4:21-cv-0430, before U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison, in which numerous mischaracterizations of the true facts occurred.

Mix Creative Learning Center (Artmix) is owned by Jacqueline Kenneally, daughter of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

The following image is the contents of the "Michel Keck dog art kit" that was sold by Jacqueline Kenneally on the Artmix website. 

NOTE: Updates to this blog post have been added in March of 2025.

In 2020, I became aware of a website selling unauthorized Michel Keck dog art kits, Michel Keck cat art kits, and Michel Keck other animal art kits, each priced at $40. It is crucial to note that, should you have read about this case online, you would only find mention of the Michel Keck "dog art kits," with no reference to the unauthorized sale of the Michel Keck "cat art kits" or "other animal" art kits. I believed this issue would be addressed on my behalf, but to my knowledge, it was not. I was utterly stunned to discover the unauthorized sale of these art kits, as I had never granted permission for this company to use my trademarked name or artwork in such a manner.

My nephew went online to the Artmix website to purchase a Michel Keck dog and cat art kit, but accidentally ordered two of the dogs, the site was deactivated upon our ability to show the contents would have been inside the michel keck cat or michel keck other animal art kits.

When my nephew received the box with the two dog kits he was shocked to find six of my copyrighted images, the same six with each kit, crammed into one small cardboard box alongside some tiny plastic cups filled with inexpensive paint, a miniature plastic cup containing approximately two tablespoons of Mod Podge, a cheap paintbrush, a sponge brush, some paper scraps with patterns, a paper silhouette of a dog’s head, and photocopied images of dog eyes—remarkably similar to the eyes I create in my dog collage works.  The kit contained nothing more than cheap supplies and scrap papers, which could never have allowed the customer to create anything remotely resembling a Michel Keck dog collage. This was a blatant, unauthorized use of my copyrights and trademark, compromising the integrity of my artistic creations and transforming them into a low-quality, unauthorized product, all without my consent or compensation. 

The image below is the contents of what was being sold as two dog art kits.

The six dog images depicted in the image below are my copyrighted artworks, included solely to illustrate the original nature of my work for the purpose of derivative creation. All six of these works are registered with the United States Copyright Office (USCO). While copyright protection is automatically conferred upon the creator of a work upon its completion, registering the work with the USCO is supposed to provide an additional layer of legal protection, affording the creator enhanced rights and remedies to prevent the unauthorized use of their copyrighted images. (this did not happen in my case).

Kenneally's 'Michel Keck dog kits' kits, were being sold for $40 each on her Artmix website—without my permission or any attempt to seek it.  What you are viewing in the two images directly above is what a customer would receive if they spent $80.00 of their hard earned money on two Michel Keck dog kits.

MORE THAN MICHEL KECK DOG KITS... CAT & OTHER ANIMALS ALSO SOLD

I think it is important to note that I did tell my attorney from the very beginning that this website was not only selling Michel Keck dog art kits, but cat and other animal art kits as well.  I wanted to have the other side be forced to produce information on the contents of those kits.  I was never given any information on the other kits.  I do not know if that was addressed on my behalf, wasn't.. or ??? I have to this day not seen the contents of what was being sold in the other Michel Keck kits.  Could it be that additional works of mine were infringed?  Perhaps.  I should have been able to get the answer to this question.  I did not.  I had the legal right to obtain information as to whether or not the cat and other animal art kits were infringing upon other works of mine but my attorneys never got this information for me, or if they did it was never given to me. 

MICHEL KECK® is a registered trademark.  

Below is the registration of my trademark Michel Keck.  

I also have a second trademark which is a trademark on just KECK to protect when my signature is used in counterfeit works.  They are two separate trademarks each serving their own protection. 

There is absolutely NO dispute that the trademark I was fighting to protect in this case was Michel Keck and court transcripts and other documents I have prove this over and over again. 

For some background information for anyone who cares to know true facts, I was forced to trademark my brand name, Michel Keck, due to ongoing misuse. People continue to exploit my name to deceive customers into believing I’m affiliated with products I have no part in. Some individuals have purchased keywords like "Michel Keck" to divert traffic away from my site and onto theirs, selling cheap knockoffs in an attempt to confuse and mislead.  Others simply use my popular name so that this information is embedded into the SEO of their websites so that when people search for Michel Keck they will come up.  If there is a way for someone to abuse a trademark I have seen it.  Every attorney I’ve worked with knows how critical this issue has been for me. Kenneally’s unauthorized use of my trademark to market these products was a clear violation, and my legal team has always understood its significance—court transcripts prove it. Yet, I am perplexed and disheartened by my attorney’s recent statements, suggesting there was no need for the court to address this matter. Something went terribly wrong, and I am determined to shed light on it and clear up the confusion.

In order to safeguard my intellectual property and prevent the very violations that have occurred in this case, I took the necessary and prudent step of registering my brand name, Michel Keck®, as a registered trademark in 2017. This action was undertaken with the express purpose of ensuring that my brand and its associated works would be protected under the full scope of U.S. trademark law, thereby shielding me from precisely the type of infringement and unauthorized exploitation that has, unfortunately, transpired. By securing this trademark, I sought to rely on the protections afforded by the government to prevent any third parties from unlawfully appropriating my name and likeness for their own gain, and to uphold the rights I hold over my intellectual property.

I would never have granted permission for my registered trademark, "Michel Keck," to be attached to what I unequivocally consider to be a substandard and inferior product. As the owner of this trademark, I retain the exclusive right to control how my mark is used and to prevent its association with any goods or services that do not meet the standards I have established for my brand. It is not only my legal right, but also my duty as a trademark owner, to vigorously defend the integrity of my trademark against any unauthorized or improper usage. This responsibility is central to preserving the value, reputation, and distinctiveness of my intellectual property under trademark law. 

From the very beginning, I made it clear to my attorneys that protecting my Michel Keck® trademark was the most important thing to me in this case. It was my priority, and I trusted them to have my back on that. So, you can imagine my shock and disbelief when, for the first time last year, I was able to read the court transcripts and found out that my own attorney had agreed with the judge that there was no need to make a separate ruling on my trademark. This has shaken me to my core.

The following images are from court transcripts in this case proving that I have been defending Michel Keck trademark and not just the Keck signature that is also a trademark in my works.   I feel that there has been an attempt to confuse the courts in this regard and I will absolutely defend the truth and share proof everyone knew what I was defending and everyone had the ability to see my registration number of the trademark this case was defending. PERIOD. 

NOTE: Every attorney involved, along with the judge, were fully aware of the following information: from the outset, my legal team submitted the registration number 5280022 for my Michel Keck trademark, as evidenced in the first image provided below. It is highly questionable why Garcia attempted to present the situation as if I were merely fighting to protect my signature trademark upon reading the registration details, or why the judge would conflate the copyright with my signature trademark. Moreover, it remains unclear why my attorney would tell the judge that there was no need to rule on anything separate to address my trademark. The court system is not supposed to operate in this manner, and I will bring the truth to light, addressing these issues with indisputable, black-and-white facts.

The image directly below is from court transcripts of information that Higbee and Associates submitted on my behalf to the courts from the onset.  It clearly states the registration number of the trademark that is assigned to my Michel Keck trademark.  What I have seen happen in this case is extremely disturbing to me.

another section of a portion of the transcript that makes it clear my trademark was being used in the title of the products sold on Kenneally's site was, "Michel Keck". 

Any assertions made by Garcia or the Judge suggesting that this case deviates from the clear and unequivocal information submitted to the court is deeply concerning to me. Further, another section of the transcript raises significant doubts as to why my attorney would inform the judge that there was no need to issue a separate ruling on my trademark issue. This statement is directly contradicted by another attorney from his firm, as evidenced in the transcript below, where it is clearly stated that they have a distinct claim for trademark infringement, separate from the claim for copyright infringement. This presents indisputable, black-and-white proof. The question remains: what transpired here?

Another segment from the court transcripts below unequivocally demonstrates that it does not reference "her signature without her permission," but rather refers to "her NAME," which is my registered trademark, Michel Keck. I possess additional information regarding this matter, which I will address in a separate post focused specifically on the trademark issue, including how it was effectively disregarded by my attorney, without my consent or authorization to do so.

It is well established in the court record of this case that there was a claim for both the unauthorized use of my copyrights and the unauthorized use of my trademark. Both my husband and I made it abundantly clear to my attorneys on multiple occasions that the protection of my trademark was the most urgent part of this case for me. Given this established fact and the overwhelming proof provided, how is it possible that, without my knowledge or authorization, the court was informed that no further action was necessary to protect my trademark rights? I only became aware of this egregious oversight in mid-2024—well after the fact. Upon discovering this, I was not only shocked and disgusted, but utterly devastated.  Why did this happen?  

UNAUTHORIZED DECISION: Trademark Rights Tossed Out Without Consent

The firm I retained to represent me and protect my trademark rights failed to do so. As evidenced by the transcript screen capture above there is adequate proof I had two separate claims, one for the infringement of my copyrights and another for the infringement of my Michel Keck trademark.  That is indisputable.

In the image below, you can clearly see the court asking Mr. Higbee, "So I don't need to deal with something for the trademark?" To which Mr. Higbee replies, "Correct." In one word, with a single, devastating response, my trademark rights—rights that I had every legal right and moral duty to defend in court—were summarily dismissed without my knowledge, consent, or authorization. This action, taken without my involvement, constitutes a profound violation of my rights and a betrayal of the trust I placed in my legal representation.

As I previously mentioned, it was not until I was given the opportunity by my appellate attorney, during the appeal process, to review the transcripts from the initial case for the first time that I became fully aware of the details contained within them. Upon reading the transcripts, I was overcome with a profound sense of both anger and sadness, to the point of tears. In seeking clarity, I consulted with two attorneys, independent of the firm that represented me, and both unequivocally stated that such a decision should never have been made, offering their sincere apologies for what transpired. To this day, I struggle to fully comprehend the reasoning behind this decision, though I have some theories.

DERIVATIVES

The below screen captures depict an unauthorized derivative work of my original Boston Terrier artwork, that was used in the promotion and sale of the unauthorized Michel Keck art kits.

This derivative was created and used without my knowledge or consent, and was  incorporated into the advertising for the Michel Keck Dog-to-Go Kit. Despite my efforts , I have been unable to determine the identity of the individual or entity responsible for creating this unauthorized derivative. 

I had asked my attorney repeatedly to address the derivative aspect of this case, and to the best of my knowledge they failed to do that for me.

The following image provides a side-by-side comparison of my original work on the left and the unauthorized derivative on the right, created by an unknown party to promote and sell the Michel Keck dog-to-go art kits. To this day, I have not received an answer regarding the identity of the individual who created the derivative work, despite requesting my attorney to obtain this information.

My style is known for colorful patterns to make the shape of the dogs face, using the original eyes and nose of the dogs, often created my works on yellow notepad paper, and children's large ruled lined papers, often leaving the body of white.  The above is actually the prime example of a 'derivative' work, meaning that anyone viewing this work that is familiar with my work would be led to believe that I was the creator of that work. 

Kenneally was selling the Michel Keck dog masterpiece kits with an unauthorized use of the Michel Keck® trademark, and an unauthorized creation of a derivative of my boston terrier original collage work, to sell art kits to go commercially for $40.00 each.  Only the trademark owner possesses the exclusive right to determine which products their trademark is attached to, as this authority ensures the integrity, quality control, and proper use of the trademark, thereby protecting both the brand's reputation and the consumer from potential confusion or dilution.  

The unauthorized use of substantially similar derivatives of my original work, in conjunction with my registered trademark, to commercially sell a product, causes significant and irreversible confusion in the marketplace.  This should have been strongly argued by my attorneys as I was lead to believe that it would be, but to the best of my knowledge this fact was greatly overlooked.

Given that my trademark is intrinsically associated with the quality and origin of my creations, any reasonable person who encounters a product adorned with an image closely resembling my unique artistic style—especially one bearing the Michel Keck trademark—would undoubtedly assume that I have authorized the sale and am receiving compensation for it. Such an assumption is both natural and unavoidable. I, however, would never consent to my name and trademark being used in this manner, yet in this case and the fair use ruling it received, I was denied the opportunity to exercise my right to refuse. The sheer disregard for my intellectual property rights in this matter is deeply troubling and unjust.

REPEATED MISCHARACTERIZATION OF FACTS:

1) Artmix: More Than A Child's Art Studio

The two screen captures directly below show that the web page url shows that Michel Keck Art Kits To Go were also categorized under the "Adult Paint and Wine Sip" section of Kenneally's shopify store. I had to use screen captures from the website The Way Back Machine as Kenneally's store was deactivated before I had a chance to screen capture these shots while her site was still active.

the following screen capture shows a photograph from Kenneally's website of women who had attended one of the wine and sip parties at Artmix.

The following two screen captures below are provided as close-ups of the above page. They are presented to demonstrate that Artmix indeed offers a wide range of adult art memberships, art classes, and art kits available for purchase specifically for wine-and-sip art parties. I am including these screen captures to clarify that, based solely on the court documents associated with this case, one might be misled into believing that Artmix is exclusively a studio catering only to small children. While this may present a more convenient narrative, it is not an accurate reflection of the facts. I do not believe that this crucial information was properly presented on my behalf in the case, and it is important to correct any potential misperception regarding the scope of Artmix’s offerings.  My opinion is that the continued mischaracterization of the full scope of Artmix's clientelle was to paint Kenneally in a more positive light and to paint me in a more negative light. 

The text used to advertise the adult parties show that the adult paint and wine classes featured artwork sourced from various artists globally.   Also an important side note is that this screen capture was obtained by The Wayback Machine from a screenshot that it took way back in 2018, a time predating the Covid-19 pandemic and its associated events.

The following screen capture, also from the wayback machine, is another page from Kenneally's website that art to go kits could be also purchased for in-studio, zoom parties; including adult paint and wine parties. 

Facts matter because when a commercial art studio, which has long offered a range of adult art classes, memberships, and wine-and-sip parties, is repeatedly misrepresented in court documents as solely a children’s art studio, it creates an incomplete and unfair narrative. This omission distorts the full scope of the studio's operations.

It was stated in court record by Mr. Garcia that Ms. Kenneally has never made a profit.

Below is another screen capture from the wayback machine showing pricing for different adult classes and adult memberships.

The image below is a close-up of the URL from the aforementioned screen capture, specifically provided to demonstrate that the content pertains to the "Adults" category. To the best of my knowledge, this evidence was never submitted by my attorneys to the court for the purposes of my defense. This omission confounds me, as the evidence is unequivocally presented in black and white, leaving no room for dispute. The documentation clearly shows that the art classes and memberships in question were intended for adults, and were neither free classes nor free memberships. Furthermore, these classes were explicitly for adult participants, not children, and centered around the use of artists' intellectual property.

If one were to rely solely on the court records, a misleading perception may prevail, one in which Artmix is exclusively characterized as a children's art studio and also perhaps misled into believing that the company’s activities of selling art to go kits were limited or solely attributable to events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. I am providing all of this information to present a more complete and nuanced understanding of Artmix’s operations, ensuring that the record accurately reflects the full spectrum of its commercial endeavors. 

Do not get me wrong,  infringement constitutes infringement regardless of the target audience or market, but I question if the repeated mischaracterization in this case was strategically employed to present the defendant in a more favorable light, while casting me in an unjustly negative one.  The reality is Artmix is a studio that has adult paint and sip parties, adult classes/membership as well as children's and they have been selling art kits to go in one fashion or another since as far back as 2013, a full decade prior to the onset of the pandemic. (screen capture of this fact provided 4 images below).

Below are select excerpts from the court transcripts demonstrating that Mr. Garcia, counsel for Kenneally, repeatedly mischaracterized the nature of her studio, falsely portraying it as solely a "children's art studio."

------------------------------------------------

and again...

-------------------------------------------------

and again....

I am also not asserting that kits were not sold during the pandemic, as this is indisputable. However, it is my contention that the court records, by virtue of their repetitive emphasis on the notion that the art kits were a direct consequence of the pandemic, may have inadvertently led to the mistaken conclusion that such kits only came into existence as a result of these extraordinary circumstances. In contrast, the screen capture directly below, provided from The Wayback Machine, irrefutably demonstrates that Artmix had been offering its "art kits to go" long before the pandemic, as far back as 2013 (image directly below). This serves to disprove any claims that the sale of these type of art kits to go were solely a byproduct of COVID-19, thereby reinforcing the need for a more complete and factually accurate presentation of the company’s history and operations. 

the close-up is a better shot of the year, 2013.  

and the following screen capture shows further information regarding adult art classes using the artwork of other artists from back to 2018, also pre Covid/pandemic.

When conducting classes, offering art kits, hosting Zoom sessions, or engaging in similar activities without the original content creator's authorization—especially for creators whose brand names are trademarked—such actions can result in the infringement of both their copyright and trademark rights. This unauthorized use strips the original creator of their ability to control how and where their intellectual property is utilized, thereby undermining their exclusive rights.

2) Mischaracterization of WHY this case was not settled out of court

Should one solely rely on the transcripts of this case, and fail to contact me directly for an alternate perspective, they may be misled into believing that the reason this case was not settled out of court was attributable to me. The court record contains repeated false and misleading assertions suggesting that the initiation of this litigation was a result of my actions. However, I need only reference a specific section of the court transcripts where Mr. Garcia truthfully acknowledged that it was his client, and not myself, who ultimately withdrew from settlement negotiations.

GARCIA:  "We've never been able to work a settlement.  And whenever we did that one time early in the case, Ms. Kenneally, you know, backed out. We wanted a non-disparagement -- and Judge Ellison (THE COURT) intervened and said..

THE COURT: "Let's not get into settlement discussions."

In this case, despite the clear evidence from Garcia's own words, where he acknowledges that his client, Kenneally, chose to back out of settlement talks, the court record paints a very different picture. It was stated repeatedly that I, as the defendant, was the one being unreasonable—suggesting that I could have avoided legal fees by simply settling, when in fact, I never acted unreasonably. The truth is, my decision was not the one that kept this case going. It was the opposing side, through their own words, who made the choice not to settle.

I must vehemently disagree with the notion that I was to blame for prolonging what was described as a frivolous case. The facts, as they stand, tell a different story. After agreeing to their initial settlement offer of $20,000, I waited patiently for six weeks to receive the terms and conditions of that agreement. When they finally arrived, I made a modest request—one with good reason—to change the disparagement clause to two years. This was not an unreasonable demand; it was a reasonable safeguard for my rights and reputation.

Yet, in response, they chose to retaliate. They told me that if I didn’t accept their new offer of $10,000 by 4 p.m., they would withdraw it entirely. This is hardly the action of a party trying to resolve matters fairly. It is deeply unfair to blame me for prolonging this issue when, in truth, it was their actions that led to the impasse.

As for Garcia’s remarks about the case being frivolous—this characterization is deeply hurtful, not just to me, but to countless artists, art teachers, professors, and even legal professionals across the United States who understand the gravity of copyright and trademark infringement. These are not trivial matters, and I will not stand by as my rights are dismissed in such a cavalier manner.

I firmly believe—and I want to make it clear that this is my personal opinion—that if a large corporation were in my position, fighting to protect its intellectual property, the language in the courtroom would have been entirely different. The respect, dignity, and seriousness with which they would be treated would never be afforded to an individual like me—someone simply defending what is rightfully theirs.

The following email is an email I received from my attorney to prove that it was stated that Garcia gave me the ultimatum of taking 50% less than the already agreed upon $20k settlement offer by 4 pm that day or he would go to courts and tell them all offers were off the table. 

The "urgent family issue" referenced was, in fact, that my father was dying from dementia and other health issues. All of my attorneys were fully aware of the difficult circumstances my family and I were enduring at that time. To ensure a complete and accurate record of the facts in this case, I am disclosing this information. The facts are clear: we agreed to settle for $20,000 out of court. However, after waiting six weeks for the terms of the agreement from Ms. Kenneally, when they were finally provided, I requested only one very minor modification—changing the length of the disparagement agreement to two years. 

I have good reason to be wary of all non-disclosure and non-disparagement terms, given the repeated abuses by infringers who continued to violate my intellectual property rights even after a settlement was reached. Every single one of my attorneys is fully aware of this history, as well as the rationale behind my request. This information could have been easily explained, yet to this day, I am unsure whether it was properly conveyed. What I do know is that I was presented with the ultimatum outlined above, with the implicit understanding that if I did not accept, the settlement would be nullified, and any further negotiations would be off the table. Therefore, for those who are concerned with all of the facts of this case, this crucial detail is of importance.

SHARING MY ART WITH TEACHERS AROUND THE WORLD

Over the years, I have been deeply honored to receive numerous requests from art teachers in both public and private schools all around the world, who have reached out to ask for my permission to create lesson plans around the styles of my artwork to share with their students. (If you scroll to the bottom of this article, you'll see just a few of the photos sent to me by teachers, showcasing their students’ works created in the Michel Keck style.) In every single one of these instances, I have wholeheartedly granted these educators permission to use my artwork, share my techniques, and develop lesson plans that allow their students to create their own pieces inspired by the style I have cultivated.  

There is a stark and significant distinction between an art teacher, operating within a legitimate educational institution, reaching out to seek my explicit permission to teach students about my artwork, and a commercial art studio creating and selling a product derived from my work for their own financial gain, without obtaining my authorization for the use of either my copyrighted artwork or my registered trademark. The former is an educational endeavor, conducted in good faith for non-commercial purposes and with my express consent, while the latter is an unauthorized commercial exploitation of my intellectual property, conducted solely for profit and in direct violation of my rights as the owner of said copyrights and trademark. This unauthorized use of my work not only undermines the integrity of my intellectual property but constitutes a clear infringement of my rights, as it is done without my consent, for commercial gain, and with no regard for the legal protections afforded to my creative works and my registered trademark.

It was exceedingly simple for all of those teachers to not only contact me, but to receive a prompt response from me as well. My phone number and email addresses are readily accessible on my websites, and a single search of my name will immediately direct one to those sites, providing clear instructions on how to reach me. However, Ms. Kenneally, in contrast, never made any attempt to contact me to request permission to use my trademarked name or my copyrighted images. Had she sought my authorization to use my trademark and copyrighted images in the manner she desired, I would have unequivocally denied her request.

As the legal owner of both my trademarks and copyrights, it is my legal right, especially in the capacity of a trademark owner, to deny the misuse and unauthorized exploitation of my name and intellectual property in such a manner.

WE HAVE SOME UNFORTUNATE NEWS

At the end of the case I was contacted by my attorneys, via email, that was sent to an old email that they had not used for me for a 2 year period, to inform me that they had unfortunate news regarding my case. They told me that the  judge presiding over my willful infringement claim against Jacqueline Kenneally and Artmix ruled in favor of the opposing party, dismissing my case on the grounds of "fair use."  The firm that had taken this case said they wanted to see it challenged and reversed and offered to appeal the case for me at a very strongly discounted fee.  

Furthermore, my attorney informed me that, in addition to the "fair use" ruling, the opposing party has requested leave to file a motion for attorney’s fees, and the judge has granted them permission to do so. This means that Jacqueline Kenneally could potentially force me to bear the legal responsibility for her attorney fees, which amount to just under $150,000.00. This ruling represents a significant financial burden, and the impact is undeniably severe. 

(UPDATE: I was actually ordered to pay $102,000.00 to Ms. Kenneally for the loss of the initial case and I was ordered to pay over $110,000.00 for the loss of the appeal case). 

If you are an artist I guarantee you that you are still reading and I am guessing that your jaw is probably on the floor right now. I have not yet spoken to one artist or art teacher/art professor that has heard the details of this case and agreed with a ‘fair use’ ruling in this situation.  Not one.   The artists, art teachers and art professors I know are terrified at what a horribly, unfavorable precedent this sets for all U.S. artists.   Any artist could wake up tomorrow morning facing unfair business competition in a market that is already flooded with illegal copies and derivatives of their works.  Not only do artists not agree with this ruling, teachers and art professors reaching out to me do not agree with this should be considered fair use.

ARTIST COMMENTS

I posed that same question, Can I take an artist’s images off their website or Google, use that artist’s copyrighted images along with the artist’s trademark or name to create an art kit /class to sell for profit and ship it out through the mail without having to ask the artist’s permission to do so?,  In a private art group I belong to online to get honest feedback from other artists.   Every artist that has responded to date is in strong disagreement with the judge’s fair use ruling on this case.  The following are real comments from real artist's who do their best to earn a living selling their art.

• "Absolutely not. Prior to using anyone’s work or name, you must have permission, particularly if you are planning to profit from their work – then you need to pay them. If it is not yours, you cannot use it." - Marian Nixon
• Who is this judge that made this ruling?  Where do they reside so that I may mail their office to point out how their ruling is unjust?  I am so sorry this happened to you.  The judge is in the wrong as well as the people that are profiting off of your work without your consent. - Jayde Hilliard-Simpson
• "I think the judge better go back to law school. Pretty sure this isn’t legal. You can’t profit from someone else’s work legally. Just like Disney doesn’t allow people to reproduce and sell Mickey Mouse!"
• "This is exactly what we are fighting against as artists. People stealing our work, our style our years of hard work." - Lisa Johnson
• "Doubtful!"
• "Do the right thing, get permission first."
• "It is hard enough on artists as it is."
• "Whatever judge said that, has no idea about copyright law. For me art is all I can physically do.  Unless I get permission to use a friend’s photo, I take all the photos I use as reference, normally, my horses, cats, flowers, etc.  Then I create from that.  My art is copyrighted.  Yet people think it is okay to steal and resell my art. That is not kosher on any level.  Think about it, as someone taking your hard-earned paycheck, you get for being say a car mechanic, because they think they need it more. You are left with nothing.  How would you like it?  The judge should know better."
• "Using their images and names without permission? No way!" - Cheryl Andrade
• "Can we write letters to the judge?"
• "Hard pass and I find it insulting." - So M Klesen
• "No way!"
• "That’s a very bad idea!" - Renée L. Lavoie 
• "The judge is in the wrong as well as the people that are profiting off of your work without consent."
• "Get a copyright attorney! Unreal!"
• "The judge needs to be voted out of office and REPLACED by someone who feels stealing is wrong.  omg this is such a simple thing and the legal system has complicated it. Stealing is wrong and against the law."
• "You’re being unfairly squashed by the big guy with $$$. Turns my stomach."
• "This is a miscarriage of justice. The judge is wrong."
• "No, people can’t just take other people’s artwork and make a profit by infringing"
• "Really bad judge IMO. Even in the context of actual education, (an accredited school w/real teacher), this would likely be iffy as fair use, let alone anyone who's not a real teacher, or who is selling the kits. I understand about biased judges and powerful/influential people getting away with breaking the law, but if it were me, I'd appeal. This ruling does not seem to follow the majority of fair use rulings. Maybe the judge was basing it on an outlier case like the one Richard Prince won by slightly altering a photographer's images, but even in that case, the court did not say they were all fair use; in fact it settled for an undisclosed amount. Sounds to me like the judge was just plain wrong, and I'd also be interested in reading the case if it's publicly viewable."
• "What the actual **** who paid off that judge???? I’d appeal!!!" - Casey Cheuvront
• "A judge is not an artist. They are not in our/my/your shoes. What right does anyone have to say what is fair use except the creator? The only authority that should make that decision is the artist being stolen from. The very basic thing we have been taught in school is to not copy someone else's paper or answers for a test...that is cheating and in school you would be penalized for it. What makes this any different? I'll tell you there is no difference. Copying is cheating and stealing. Stealing is wrong...OMG this is in every culture in the world. Lastly the legal system was set up to protect people like me (and myself) as a MORAL and PRICIPALED guideline for HOW to BEHAVE in society. It was not set up for people to use as a loophole to get away with shit and hurt other people who are actually working hard to earn a living. If I park my car in the street just because it is out in the open does not give anyone the right to take it...that is stealing and for me some things are black and white when it comes to this." - Liza Lambertini
• I would completely understand fair use in a teaching capacity where zero sales of the artwork produced by the students are involved. But… They are making money off of these stolen artwork kits, correct? And are they an accredited teaching facility? Is it non-profit? It sure doesn't look like it!
  This worries me greatly because of those fly by night paint and sip parties.  IMO, these so-called legal experts and that judge need a refresher course. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ - Cheryl Andrade

If you are unaware of the factors of four use and how they are applied click here for additional information.  To note fair use factors applied to copyrights are different than trademark and my trademark rights were essentially ignored by the courts without my authorization. 

FAIR USE JUDGMENT SETS UNFAVORABLE PRECEDENT

A fair use judgement in this case is harmful not just for myself and my art business but for all other artists out there that rely on their original creations to earn their income.  Our creations are our paychecks!  Calling what happened in this case fair use means that I can go to Google or to any artist’s website steal any or all of their images and use them along with the artist’s name to create art kits to sell for profit on my own website without ever asking the artist’s permission to do so.  Think of the serious ramifications that would have on all artists, especially those that work in the form of 2-d artworks such as paintings, drawings and collage work.  

I’ve worked as a full-time, professional artist since 2003 and I believe I have enjoyed the level of success that I have in large part simply because my artistic stylings stand out as very unique & distinctively different.  By saying it is fair use for someone to profit off of showing other people how to duplicate our artworks is just plain wrong.  These kits were being sold on a website that anyone could access 24/7, this is not the situation of a public school teacher sitting with her students face-to-face and teaching them about me and an artist and how I create my art.  Jacqueline Kenneally was selling 'Michel Keck' art kits commercially for profit and the kits were advertised to each and every website visitor that came to that site, regardless of whether they purchased or not.  Period. Whether 1 kit had been sold or 1 million kits had been sold, it does not matter to the artist, our market value is harmed in the other ways I've mentioned above and NOT only by 'number of sales'.  

It is my firm opinion that the highly skewed ruling of "fair use" in this case has now effectively opened the floodgates for anyone to freely access and download an artist's images from Google or their personal website, without any consent from the artist, and subsequently create and sell art kits or classes that teach others how to make derivatives of the artist’s original work for personal profit. This decision, if left unchallenged, sets a dangerous precedent whereby artists’ intellectual property can be exploited with impunity, undermining the rights of the very creators who should be afforded legal protection.

In light of this "fair use" ruling based on the facts of this case, I no longer believe there is any justification for artists to continue paying any further fees to the U.S. government for the registration of copyrights on their works, in the hopes that such registration would provide them with any meaningful legal protection through statutory damages. The value of such registration appears, at best, dubious.

UNEQUAL JUSTICE IN THE COURTS: Corporate Protection vs. Small Creators 

I am deeply curious about the consequences I would personally face if I were to replicate the very actions that have been allowed in this case. Suppose, for instance, I were to begin selling "Disney" art kits to go from my website, utilizing the copyrighted images and the Disney® registered trademarked for my own profit. Would I legally be allowed to do so if all I have to do is claim my product is 'educational' and plead ignorant to understanding copyright laws, or would I be sued for trademark and copyright infringement?  Would a judge rule that such an act falls under "fair use"?

I absolutely believe that I would be sued for willful copyright and trademark infringement (and justifiably so). 

It is my legal right as an artist and copyright holder to choose what products my registered images and trademark name get attached to.  Period.  I was denied that opportunity.  

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

After the fair use ruling was issued by the judge a press release was put out by Jacqueline Kenneally’s firm, Greenberg Traurig, in which Kenneally was quoted as saying the following…

"I am so grateful to Greenberg Traurig Shareholders Roland Garcia and Mark Chretien for all of their help, knowledge, and kindness," said Jacqueline Kenneally, owner of Mix Creative. "This result is an enormous relief for ArtMix and me, as well as other art teachers and artists everywhere. Thanks to their good work, I can resume teaching my students about artists from around the world, continuing to give them full credit for their inspiration with more joy again after this nearly two-year-long journey."

Greenberg Traurig's full press release can be read at the following link

https://www.lelezard.com/en/news-20716765.html?fbclid=IwAR2kt0ShXUSUL9wnSmZIOB__gKGoVRxZ2dgmVSp_h149rmu3-EUbYqs2F1A

I have written about this case in detail since the time of that press release they put out and I will continue to write and defend myself to all that has happened in the original case and the appeal case and that is my first amendment right to share facts, many of which are completely missing from court record.  I am not going to shy away from sharing the facts of the case because I am fearful of more financially penalties that will come my way, or for fear of being accused of 'throwing tantrums' by the defendant's counsel.  

PLAINTIFF WON'T STOP HER TANTRUMS AND DISPARAGEMENT

It has been falsely asserted in the court records that I have engaged in disparaging remarks towards Ms. Kenneally and the courts. I firmly stand by my right to defend myself, and under the First Amendment, I am afforded the right to free speech. It is not disparagement when the information shared is TRUE and FACTUAL and my personal opinion on the judge's ruling in this case. I have not lied.  I have commented on this case, and will continue to do so, through my blog, social media, and other platforms, sharing the facts to ensure that ALL sides of the story are accurately represented.  

If someone accuses you of disparagement, but no defamatory or damaging statements were made (i.e., you didn’t harm their reputation through FALSE claims), then could that itself be considered defamation or slander itself, depending on the jurisdiction?   I have stated facts of this case. I have shared opinions of other artists which is their first amendment right, I have shared my opinions that a fair use ruling in this case was erroneous, that is my first amendment right to share facts and my true opinions of this case. 

I am aware that Mr. Garcia has falsely asserted in the court record that I am a 'serial plaintiff.' In truth, my over two-decade-long career has involved only a small number of legal cases. As an artist, I have consistently faced significant intellectual property infringement issues, particularly regarding both my trademark and copyright. On any given day, I can find multiple new instances of such infringements, yet the total number of legal cases I have filed in my entire career is far fewer than the number of infringements I may encounter on a single day. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how Mr. Garcia could, in good conscience, label me as a 'serial plaintiff,' especially given that this statement has been entered into the public record, and I am unable to retract it. 

ARTISTS, ART TEACHERS & ART PROFESSIONALS WHO DISAGREE WITH RULING

I want everyone reading this article to understand something very personal to me. I have many dear friends who have devoted their lives to teaching art—some as dedicated educators in the public school system and others as professors at the college level. These are individuals who have committed themselves to nurturing creativity, inspiring the next generation of artists, and upholding the integrity of artistic expression. When I shared with them the comments made by Jacqueline Kenneally in the press release issued by her attorneys, every single one of them expressed their disagreement with her position. These are respected, knowledgeable professionals who understand the importance of protecting an artist’s work, and not one of them stood in support of her actions. This is not just a matter of only legal technicalities—this is about the respect and fairness that every artist deserves.

I believed that letters from several art professors and art teachers, who expressed their disagreement with the fair use ruling and offered to outline their reasons for their position, would be submitted on my behalf to the appellate judges. However, this never happened.  My appeal attorney asked if I could get letters of this nature, I explained yes that absolutely I could, I shared with him a letter from an art professor at Valdosta University, but no letters were ever shared with the appellate judges, I still do not know why as I think this was very important information to share.

Artists dedicate immense effort and creativity to earn a livelihood through the creation and sale of their original artworks. The recent judicial ruling, which permits any individual or entity to utilize our copyrighted images and trademarks without our consent, under the pretext of "educational use," is deeply concerning to all artists I have communicated with. This ruling introduces significant uncertainty and risks, as it effectively allows for the unauthorized exploitation of an artist’s intellectual property for profit on websites, all while sidestepping the creator’s fundamental rights.

The artist's profession is already fraught with challenges—financial, emotional, and practical—without the added burden of knowing that the law appears to favor those who exploit our intellectual property for their own financial gain. This ruling undermines the very essence of an artist's ability to protect their work and earn a fair income. To make matters worse, artists now face the added stress of potentially being legally liable for paying the legal fees of the person or entity that profited off their registered copyrights, further compounding the already daunting pressures of our profession.

In my opinion, and the opinion of many other hard-working artists and art teachers, the judge in this case got this ruling wrong. 

MICHEL KECK ART IN THE TEACHER'S CLASSROOM

Included below are some of the photographs that have been sent to me over the years by art teachers who have asked my permission to create lesson plans to be taught face-to-face with their students for instructional purposes only and not for profit.  It should be noted that each of the teachers reached out to me for permission to do so and I readily granted it to them. 

Everyone close to me knows that I have privately and publicly spoken about how teachers reaching out to me to teach and inspire their children in their classrooms is one of the things I am most proud of as an artist.  These teachers truly instruct children on my style of art, how to create in the style I created, and they do so in face-to-face classroom settings in their schools for instructional purposes only and not to sell a commercial product for money.  I have always gladly granted my permission for these purposes. 

I do not and will not give any art studio owner or artist permission to use my copyrighted images and my registered trademark to create any product to be sold for profit, on websites, at farmer's markets, fairs, etc. Period. 

the artworks below are by Sackville School Students in the UK creating artwork based on the styles of Michel Keck dog art collages 

the photo below was sent to me by Trudy Taylor a teacher who had reached out to me for permission to share my artwork with her students to inspire them to create dog art collages in Michel Keck style

the photos below are artworks created by Mr. Vic Hazeldine (UK) from lesson plan to teach collage style of Michel Keck 

the artworks below were created by Bronwyn Lewis (australia) students creations based on their interpretations of the Michel Keck collage style

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

There are many inaccuracies and misstatements contained within the court transcripts that not only misrepresent the facts of the case but also serve to damage my personal character and the reputation of my brand name. Such falsehoods cause harm to my professional standing, public image, and business interests, all of which are founded upon a long-established and reputable brand name I've worked hard to build for over two decades. I will utilize this blog post as a means of defending myself against the false and misleading statements that have been made concerning this case. In certain instances, these untruths have been not only allowed to be perpetuated but have also been reiterated repeatedly, resulting in the publication of articles that continue to propagate and amplify these falsehoods. As a citizen of the United States, I am afforded the fundamental right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This right empowers me to express my thoughts, defend my character in the face of false and defamatory statements. In exercising this right, I aim to set the record straight and protect my reputation from the harm caused by the continued spread of misinformation. The First Amendment guarantees my ability to address and correct these falsehoods without fear of retribution, ensuring that my voice can be heard in defense of the truth.

While such a narrative that some Indiana artist was demanding almost 1 million dollars from some small children's art studio that was selling art kits because of Covid (the pandemic) may serve to generate dramatic attention, it is simply untrue. 

Since Kenneally utilized six of my registered images without authorization, and potentially more, it is important to note that, to the best of my knowledge, my attorneys never conducted a thorough inquiry into the contents of the "Michel Keck cat art kits" or the "Michel Keck other animal art kits" that were being distributed. Mr. Garcia, however, erroneously took the six instances of infringement and multiplied them by $150,000.00, misrepresenting that I was demanding such an amount. This statement is unequivocally false and grossly mischaracterizes the actual circumstances of the case.

In the email below you will see that I did question my attorney why he wrote the complaint the way he did.  He is an attorney, I am not and trusted that since this is the way they do it, that is the way it is done.

The figure of $900,000.00, as referenced and repeated over and over again in court records and many articles written about this case, is demonstrably inaccurate and is off by a staggering $855,000.00  more than what I told my attorneys I would settle out of court for.  This gross miscalculation not only reflects a fundamental error but also highlights the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, further amplifying the defamation of my character and business reputation.  

While my attorneys did state that the aforementioned assertion is factually inaccurate, as evidenced by the capture from the court document below, it is regrettable that certain reporters chose to selectively focus on only one side of the information. This biased representation was then propagated, as it serves to create a more sensationalized narrative, despite being contrary to the full and accurate facts of the matter.   

I find it profoundly disturbing that an attorney is permitted to repeatedly present an untruth in our courts and mischaracterize actual events, despite the existence of contradictory evidence on the official record, with only one side of the matter being given undue attention in the media. I wish to formally note, for the record, that each reporter who selectively cherry picked information from the court records, intentionally disregarding the truth to tell a story to fit a narrative you like, is engaging in conduct that is not only unethical but also legally impermissible. Such actions can constitute a violation of the law.

I possess a considerable body of additional documentation, including emails, screen captures, and records of phone conversations, all of which will provide a thorough and detailed account of the initial case, the appeal proceedings, and the associated matters. I intend to disclose this information in a forthcoming blog post, with the hope of addressing and rectifying the mischaracterizations, attorney errors, and misleading statements that have defamed my character throughout all of this. This entire process has spanned five years of my life, with one year being particularly devastating as it coincided with the loss of my father, a time of profound personal grief for both my family and me.

I am not certain what "tantrums" or "disparagement" Mr. Garcia is referring to. It is my belief that he may be referencing this blog post and the video available on my Instagram page, where I provide my honest commentary on the contents of the unauthorized Michel Keck art kits. From both a legal and an artist’s perspective, it is my opinion that statements such as the one above, made in a court setting, suggesting that I will cease my so-called disparaging remarks (which I have not done) and stop throwing "tantrums" (something I have never done), are not only unprofessional, but also an attempt to undermine my fundamental right to speak out. As an artist, I am deeply compelled to defend my work, my intellectual property, and the impact that unchecked trademark and copyright infringement can have on the livelihood and businesses of creators. Allowing such violations to go unchecked can have devastating consequences for artists, and it is my First Amendment Right to bring this to light.

I have shared facts and given my opinions on what I believe is an erroneous ruling that has set a dangerous precedent for all creators.  I will speak up, I will defend myself, and I will not be dissuaded by the fear of additional monetary penalties being imposed upon me. I have not defamed anyone's character, nor have I disparaged anyone. I have simply stated facts, and given my opinions on what I think was an erroneous fair use ruling. I fully exercise my First Amendment right to do so. 

$216,000.00 TO BE PAID TO KENNEALLY FOR HER ATTORNEY FEES

It is important to note that the judge has already ordered me to pay Ms. Kenneally $102,000.00 in attorney’s fees due to my attorneys' failure to prevail in my copyright and trademark case. I am currently awaiting clarification regarding the remaining balance of up to $114,000.00, which I have been ordered to pay as a result of the unfavorable outcome of my appeal. If required to pay this additional amount, I will have paid Ms. Kenneally a total of $216,000.00 for the unauthorized sale of Michel Keck art kits on her website for $40 each, simply because I chose to defend my legal rights and make every effort to protect my copyrights and registered trademark.  

I used the money from my husband and my nest egg to immediately pay the $102,000.00. I received conflicting advice on whether to do so. One attorney advised me not to pay, suggesting I let them come after me for it, while another insisted I pay it immediately since I did have access to that amount and have the court hold it. I had such faith in the appeal, encouraged by different comments several attorneys made to me regarding it, that I paid our retirement money for the court to hold believing the appeals court would see the facts and the money would be returned to us.  One comment in particular from Mr. Higbee’s statement—that he doubted the appeal attorneys would make the same mistake—I put my good faith reliance in. I trusted that information and, with the belief that the appeal attorneys would not repeat the same error, I used our nest egg to pay. Unfortunately, that information was gravely mistaken, as my appeal attorney ultimately lost the case as well.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1) Ms. Kenneally took six of my copyrighted images, and I was never provided with information regarding the contents of the Michel Keck 'cat' and 'other animal' kits. Someone from her organization created an unauthorized derivative of my work, using it in conjunction with my Michel Keck® registered trademark, to sell unauthorized Michel Keck art kits for $40 each through her website.

2) Artmix was as much of an adult art studio as a children's art studio according to screen captures from the wayback machine.  Michel Keck art kits were also listed under the adult paint and sip category of her website at one time.

3) Artmix did have sales of other art to go kits as far back as 2013, far before Covid and the pandemic.

4) I agreed to settle this case out of court for their offer $20,000. At no time did I demand anywhere near $900,000. The court record reflects that my attorneys sent an initial settlement demand for $45,000. Any reporter who continues to mischaracterize these facts is disparaging my name and defaming my character.

5) Garcia admitted in court record that it was his client Kenneally that 'backed out' of settling and Judge Ellison intervened in court and stated that settlement discussions did not need to be discussed. 

6) My attorney, without my authorization, agreed with the judge and informed him that the trademark issue did not need to be addressed separately. This decision was made entirely without my knowledge or consent. It is 100% my opinion that this huge mistake or error cost me the initial case, and I didn’t even know it had happened until last year when I was able to read the transcripts. What happened to me, by my attorney failing to properly defend my interests and allowing such a crucial issue to be overlooked, can only be described in my opinion as a severe breach of professional duty and negligence in representing my legal rights.

7) I decided to appeal the case based on the encouragement of three different attorneys and accepted the offer from The Digital Justice Foundation to handle the appeal.  It is important to note that, at the time I consented to their involvement, I was unaware that Mr. Higbee had informed the court that my trademark issue need not be addressed separately.  

8) Higbee and Associates introduced me to The Digital Justice Foundation, the foundation that offered to appeal the case for me.

I believe the crux of this matter is that I am an artist who will continue to steadfastly defend my intellectual property rights and the rights of fellow creators. I am not one to be intimidated or bullied, nor do I fear the loss of my financial resources when fighting for what is just and right. I will not be silenced in speaking my truth, and I will not tolerate those who fail to honor their commitments to act on my behalf being held unaccountable. This stance undoubtedly ruffles the feathers of many. At the heart of this case lies the undeniable truth of a small Indiana artist who, in seeking justice, found herself in opposition to the daughter of a powerful politician. Like it or not, that is the reality of this situation.   I was never informed that the owner of the company my attorneys sued on my behalf was Nancy Pelosi's daughter; I discovered this only after the case was already well underway.  Facts matter. 

I do find it ironic that at the bottom of Kenneally's website a copyright disclaimer can be viewed: “© Artmix Creative Learning center. All Rights Reserved. 

 ©Michel Keck. All Rights Reserved.    

michel@michelkeck.com - michelkeck.com - phone: 219-306-9474