## Facts

- Rutgers Presbyterian Church solicited mural designs for its chancel wall; Alfred D. Crimi, a professional muralist, was selected.
- In 1938, the parties executed a written contract providing that the fresco, once affixed, would become part of the church building and that copyright would be assigned to the church.
- Crimi painted a large true fresco directly integrated into the church wall, signed it, completed it on time, and was paid $6,800 in full.
- About eight years later, the church painted over the mural without notifying Crimi, citing objections by some parishioners to the mural’s depiction of Christ.
- Crimi sued for equitable relief (uncovering the mural, permission to remove it) and/or damages, alleging harm to his professional reputation and remaining interests in the work.

## Issues

1. Whether an artist who contractually agreed that an installed fresco becomes part of a building and assigned the work’s copyright retains any legal right to prevent the building owner from covering or destroying the mural.
2. Whether an artist may obtain equitable relief or damages based on reputational harm from obliteration of the work, notwithstanding the owner’s property and contractual rights.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the church.
- The church, as owner of the building and owner of the mural as part of the realty, could paint over the fresco.
- The artist was denied mandatory injunctive relief compelling restoration or allowing removal of the work.
- The artist was denied damages because the church’s actions were treated as an exercise of rights the artist had transferred by contract.

## Legal Principles

- When a contract provides that an installed artwork becomes part of a building and the artist assigns copyright to the property owner, the owner generally holds full dominion to alter, cover, or destroy the work absent a specific contractual restriction.
- A fresco incorporated into a wall may be treated as a fixture and part of the real property, placing control of the surface with the real property owner.
- Absent statutory protection or an express contractual reservation, an artist’s reputational or integrity-based objection to alteration or destruction does not, by itself, create enforceable rights against the owner.

## Conclusion

The court held that the church’s ownership interests—reinforced by the contract making the fresco part of the building and transferring copyright—permitted the church to paint over the mural, leaving the artist without equitable relief or damages for the work’s obliteration.


Crimi v. Rutgers Presbyterian Church, 194 Misc. 570, 89 N.Y.S.2d 813 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1949)