A prominent holography artist has filed a lawsuit against photographer Chris Levine, claiming co-authorship of two iconic holographic portraits of Queen Elizabeth II that have become among the most recognizable images of the late monarch. Rob Munday, who has specialized in holography since the early 1980s, is suing Levine over the famous works titled "Equanimity" and "Lightness of Being," alleging that Levine has wrongfully claimed sole artistic credit for the collaborative pieces.
The disputed portraits were originally commissioned by the Jersey Heritage Trust in 2004 to commemorate the 800th anniversary of the Channel Islands' allegiance to the English crown. Created during two separate photo sessions conducted in 2003 and 2004, these groundbreaking holographic images have since been displayed in major British art institutions and are now part of the National Portrait Gallery's permanent collection. The works represent a significant artistic achievement, combining traditional portraiture with cutting-edge holographic technology.
Munday argues that his specialized expertise in holography was essential to creating the portraits and that he deserves recognition as a joint author of the works. "I've been going through this cycle for 20 years," Munday told The Guardian, which first reported the story. "I'm not young anymore; it felt like this had to be fought now or never." According to Munday's claims, he and Levine reached a settlement agreement with the Jersey Heritage Trust in 2005 that acknowledged their joint authorship, but this agreement has subsequently been violated.
The lawsuit, filed in England's High Court, alleges that Levine and his company, Sphere 9, have violated Munday's moral rights by consistently failing to provide him with proper attribution. Munday is seeking formal recognition as co-author of the portraits and demands a public acknowledgment that the works were created jointly. The legal action represents the culmination of a two-decade dispute over creative credit that has significant implications for collaborative artistic projects.
Levine strongly disputes Munday's assertions, maintaining that he was the sole artist commissioned for the project. "Mr. Munday does not hold any copyright in 'Equanimity' or 'Lightness of Being,'" Levine stated, characterizing Munday as merely "a technical subcontractor who assisted in production as part of my team, not as an artistic partner." Levine, who describes himself as an artist working with light and incorporating photography into his projects, added defiantly, "Any claim on my rights will be fiercely defended. This is my art."
The current legal dispute follows a separate court case filed in 2024 by the Jersey Heritage Trust against Levine, which alleged breach of contract and unauthorized sales of unlicensed editions of the royal portraits. That case was ultimately settled out of court, with both parties issuing a joint statement acknowledging that "Chris Levine was the sole artist commissioned by the Jersey Heritage Trust to create the portrait, while also recognizing the contributions of holographer Robert Munday of UK Company Spatial Imaging among other collaborators."
Munday's decision to pursue legal action was reportedly triggered by a controversial Instagram post that Levine published following the settlement of the Jersey Heritage Trust case. In the since-deleted post, Levine wrote, "Truth prevailed. I was the sole artist commissioned and am now legally recognized as the sole author of the work." This public declaration apparently prompted Munday to take decisive legal action to protect what he considers his rightful claim to co-authorship.
The most famous of the disputed works, "Lightness of Being," features an unprecedented image of Queen Elizabeth II with her eyes closed, captured during what was likely a moment between formal poses. This particular portrait gained international recognition and has been featured in numerous prominent exhibitions worldwide. The image also appears on the cover of Levine's upcoming monograph, further highlighting the commercial and artistic value of the disputed works.
The case raises important questions about artistic collaboration, attribution, and the rights of technical specialists who contribute essential expertise to creative projects. As the legal proceedings continue, the art world watches closely to see how the courts will determine the boundaries between artistic vision and technical contribution in collaborative works. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how credit and copyright are assigned in future collaborative artistic endeavors involving specialized technical skills.
