I am a conservative, Christian artist who, from the beginning of my career, was out of place in a liberal art world. So, I built my own platform as a self-representing artist online. I did well for myself, but that success came at a cost. Over the years, I’ve had my copyrights and trademarks used without my permission for profit in nearly every scenario possible. I’ve had to hire attorneys across the country to help me with IP cases, from small to behemoth. But none of that prepared me for the latest blow: a court ruling and the defamation of my character that effectively ended my over two-decade-old art business this year (2024).
​
The situation began when we discovered a website & brick and mortar location that was selling unauthorized “Michel Keck Art Kits” for profit. This website/establishment was not only selling art kits online but also art classes (all ages), art memberships all ages, and wine-and-sip art parties for adults to drink and make art. We reported this case to a California law firm that had helped me in other infringement cases prior, and they confirmed, upon review, it was a clear case of trademark and copyright infringement and perhaps willful. Unfortunately, I had never been made aware that the owner of the art studio they were legally pursuing for me was owned by Nancy Pelosi's daughter.
​
When the attorney assigned to my case showed me the complaint he planned to file, I questioned why it stated I could be entitled to up to $150,000 per infringement, instead of just stating the demand amount. Before each case, we had discussions about the initial demand, with my husband—who worked for my company—always involved. We relied on the attorneys' expertise, knowing that typically, a settlement is about half of the initial demand. We landed on $75,000. When I questioned it, he said that is how it is handled so if it ever had to go to judge/jury it gives them leeway. I am not an attorney, so I have no reason to believe that is not standard practice.​ However, by drafting the complaint as they did, it allowed the defendant’s lawyer to portray me negatively in court, which he exploited. The false narrative that I was demanding nearly a million dollars has being repeated multiple times now publicly, defaming my character. Instead of taking the time to read the full transcripts or ask me directly, reporters ran with the sensational headline tarnishing my business and character.
​
Things took a devastating turn when, in June of this year, my appeals attorney shared court transcripts with me, revealing that my attorney had misinformed the judge, wrongly claiming my trademark rights could be ignored—something I had never agreed to. This grave error led the judge to rule Kenneally’s use of my work as "fair use," a ruling that I do not believe could have been made if the judge had been required to address my trademark infringement claim, as my law firm had assured me they would do on my behalf. As a trademark owner, it is my legal duty to protect my rights or risk losing them. I had every right to have my trademark defended in court, because only I, as the owner, can decide what products my trademark is attached to. From the start, I made it clear to the firm I hired that protecting my trademark was my top priority. Yet, when the judge essentially asked my attorney if he could ignore my trademark, my attorney shockingly responded, "correct." When my husband and I read that in the transcripts this June, we were devastated—sickened, in utter disbelief. We felt as though we'd been blindsided.
To add insult to injury, the judge awarded that I pay over $102,000 in attorney fees in a case where my trademark and registered copyrights were used without my consent to sell a “Michel Keck Art Kit” for profit. In addition, I have already paid over $50,000 to two firms that assisted with the appeal—one of which is a nonprofit that reached out to me, believing strongly that this case should not be allowed to stand as a fair use ruling. Unfortunately, the appeal was lost, and now the defendants’ attorneys have filed a fee motion demanding that I pay over $100,000 in additional legal fees—far more than the $40,000 that both firms had anticipated before the appeal. They were wrong, and the financial burden has become far greater than expected.
​
This ongoing legal battle, compounded by the overwhelming costs, has led to the closure of my online art business—a business I built from the ground up over two decades, pouring my heart, soul, and countless hours into. The impact has been nothing short of devastating, both financially and emotionally. The loss of something I worked so tirelessly to create is a blow that no amount of money can replace.
Every single artist is vulnerable to becoming the victim of this same theft. Anyone with the means can exploit an artist's work simply by selling it as part of a so-called educational product, whether it's a paint-and-sip class, art course, or any number of similar offerings. The ruling in this case sets a dangerous precedent, where any creative work can be appropriated under the guise of "fair use" for retail profit. The consequences are dire and will affect all creators—artists, art teachers, and art professors alike—who are now deeply concerned by the far-reaching ramifications of this decision. Every artist I know has expressed how devastating and fundamentally wrong this ruling is, and the impact it will have on the integrity of creative work is catastrophic. This ruling should not stand—it undermines the very foundation of artistic rights and protections.
​
What is happening in our courtrooms today exposes the deep flaws in a two-tier justice system, where the powerful are shielded and the rest of us are left vulnerable. In the middle of this case, I asked a question that cuts to the heart of the injustice I’m facing: if a judge ruled that it was "fair use" for someone to sell Michel Keck Art Kits using my copyrighted characters/artwork and the Michel Keck brand name (trademark) for their own profit, without my permission, why is it that I wouldn't be able to do that same thing to Disney (or any other large right's holder for that matter)? If it’s true that doing so to Disney would be illegal, then by that same logic and legal standards, why isn’t it equally illegal when someone else does it to me?
​
This is the fundamental issue: the law must be equally applied to all, no matter how much money or influence you have. If I can't be protected from intellectual property theft in the exact same legal manner Disney would be, why should a powerful politicians family member be allowed to take my copyrights and trademark and profit from it without the same legal consequence? It’s not just wrong—it’s a glaring injustice that the system is failing to uphold the rights of everyday people. The law must protect us all equally, or it isn’t justice at all.
​