?10 '12 1'3 14' '15. 16 "?17 18 19 20 '21 22 2'3 FILED 17 JUN 02 AM 9:00 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLER E-FILED CASE NUMBER: 17-2-14150-C SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY. MICHAEL MOI, an individual, No. Plaintiff; COMPLAINT V. C-HIHULY STUDIO. INC aWashington Corporation; DALE individually and as a married pe1$o11; LE SLIE CHIHU-I. indirriduall}r and as a married person Defendants. PLAINTIFF MOI alle gess- as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION Dale Chihuly?s fame. in part, is due to his reputation ?as a proli?c artist-whose, a111bitio11. brilliance. and talent allow him to pErSonally create massive- volumes of work; there is a- profound disconnect between the truth, however, and this carefully crafted image. Although C-hihuly-and his studio have-tacitly acknowledged that for decades, a team of glasSblowers has produced his famed glassw'ork. the truth behind the creation of his. paintings has been intentionally hidden. Hundreds of millions of dollars" worth of paintings have been created. exhibited and sold across the globe, all. claimed to be the sole work-of Chihuly. These, paintings (COMPLAINT- 1 PREY BUCK. P53 {011275331} 12011 Semnn, WA 93.101 P: (206)486?8000 (2115) 9112-9651} SEA 1'0 1'2-3 have not only-spread- Chihuly?s name to all cornersaof the earth, but they have also brought him and his business great ?nancial gain. Unlike artists such as; Marilyn Minter, Jeff Koons, and Taltashi Mutakami, whose use of welluoredentialed and artistically trained assistants is visible,- -well_~docun_1ented, and transparent to the buying public, Dale Chihuiy and the Chihuly Studio have publicly maintained that his-drawings, paintings, and prints'are made by his 'ovvn that doing so plays-a ?very reentral role? to ?his creative process} The reality is that the artist has long relied on a collection of discreet and trusted individuals to work in the shadows-'5 to create the drawings and paintings on paper, glass, Plexiglas, and canvas that hear his name. This small group, which has never been publicly 'a'cltnoWIedged, had two requirements: secrecy and unwavering loyalty. .Foi' almost two decades, Michael Moi (hereafter pe?rsonified?bo?th. From the years 1.999i-20i-4, Moi participated in myriad clandestine painting sessions. lmpe?rtantly, at no point in this long relationship did Moi ever get paid for his effort, become an employee, or sign an assignment of copyright, a ?work for hire.? agreement, or con?dentiality agreement, In lieu of payment for his years of creative contributions, Dale Chihuly? repeatedly and consistently promised Moi future compensation. Moi- co-auth?reria large volume of visual works that have been inaccurately credited solely to, and exploited solely for the economic bene?t?itiof', Dale Chihuiy, Chiltuly Studio, and Chihuly Workshop (collectively, ?Chihulyi?l, all in breach of the. agreement Chihuly had. with its shadow painting team. Moi. new demands a complete accounting and payment of proceeds due to him under the Copyright Act- and rightful attribution per the Visual ArtiSts Rights Act 1 Nathan'- Kai-nan, ?The Butter?y and the. Spider?, in Paar sues, Ps {002351653} lane FIFTH avawuagsun?stsou sen at P: (toe) assessor: (206) stresses 10 1'PARTIES L'l Plaintiff Mi?ehaei Moi is a resident of King, County, Washington. and resides within. the Western District of Washington. 1.2 Defendant Chihuly -S_tndio,_ 111e,, (?Studio?) is, on information and- heI-ief, a Washington Corporation- doing business in King County. Washington, within the WeStern Di'striet of" Washington. 1.3 Defendant Dale Chihuly is-a resident of King County, Washington? is an. miner of :the Studio amt! exercises eontrol over the activities of the studio. He resides within the Western District ofWashington. 1.4 Deteit'dant Leslie Chihuly' (hereafter ?Leslie?U, is a resident of King County, Washington, an owner of the Studio and. acts. as its. president. Leslie and Daie Chihnly are husband and Wife. She resides within. the Western District. of Washington. II. ..JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2.1 This eottrt has jurisdiot'imi. over the parties-and subject matter ot?this lawsuit. "2 2 Venue is proper-in King Co minty Superior Court. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 3-1 M'iehael Moi first became aoquainted with Dale? Chih'uly: in the fall of1999-on Chihuly?s boat the Meteor. Moi met the artist through Billy O?Neill then an. employee at the Salmon. Bay Boat Yard Who aiso worked as afhoat skipper for 'Chihuly. left his position at Salmon Bay to beeotn?e- Chihuly?s assistant soon after Moi?s nun-oduction to- the artist. COWLAINT- 3 BUCK, PS. 12m]. FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 190i} SEATTLE, WA sst'oi. mans) sea-soon s; (206) ans-sees '23 3.2. Moi was initially hired 'as an independent contractor for building and construction-related. contract work. These short-term projects,? ranging front. roof replacements. on several of Chiltuly?s propeities to decommissioning an oil tank at Chihuly?s then?girlfriend?s house: were all eilearl}.r de?ned in scope and were identi?ed in tenus of speci?c services and expected. deli verable?s. Moi all contracted work. 3.3 Shortly atter- his initial introduction to. Dale Chihul-y, Moi began receiving calls from the artist-,fhis executive assistants 'andz'or O?Neil} attendance at Chihuly?s- frequent and impromptu painting sessions. Due to' Chihuly?s oiten manic'requestsg O?Neill and his assistants were 'll'equently deluged with the artist?s Overwhelming; number of demands. Moi and others were brought in to ?ll the gaps. 3.14. Dale Chihul-y?s painting sessions. though frenzied, resulted in what the artist wanted moat:- an ef?cient. production line generating a large volume of paintings; Before each --ses_si_on, long iinesot?heavy stock French watercolor paper would'be laid out, edge to-edgt?. in as many rows as the Boatlto'use?s outdoor deck or indoor painting studio {known as the ?Blue Ronni?) would allow. Painting on. the deck required several preparatoryz steps. First: the watercolor paper'- had to be carefully.- tacked down in each corner to prevent Lake Union?s unpredictable wind from 'overtuming any completed works. Second, foam mops and litresgallon plastic buckets, haltlliilled. with water, were 'placed'atnong' the. rows of blank paper. Third: large grey- metai rolling cans containing Chihuly?s eastern-made Golden acrylic. paints woutd be positioned and readied for use (Moi had agreat deal of this same eastern Chihuly paint in- his peasession). 'In the warmer months, it was not uncommon for two painting sessions to be scheduled. ?per day one in the morningand another in the evening. The. large amount of prep COMPLAINT- .4 lift. use were avenue sot-rs 196.0 Searr L's, WA 93101 P: use) ass-soot] F: one) 902-9660. 10 11 '12 ?13work: and support required for these: painting sessions resulted .in Moi being on extereread-y- standby should Chihuijir or O?Neill call him- 35 Once begun, the painting sessions were intensely. focused. Working just a few steps ahead of Chihnly, O?Neill and Moi Would pour paint directly onto the'l'ong line. of blank paper and begin to ?mop out? the backgrotnid colors. Cliihtily would follow on their heels with Edots, drips and iines of his own as they worked their way down the row of white paper. Once Moi created the background and body of the piece, Chihuiy or O?Neil] would the-n add. additional touc11es:_l_ip_wraps, body wraps, reeds, or other abstract fonn's. 3.6 The ?nal. step was completed by adding Chihuly?s recognizable signature. to the bottom of each painting. This process was repeated for each row of paper nutil everything had been completed. 3.7 it" Chihuly desired a second painting session, theentire. preparatory process would berep'eated', and the Still-drying: paintings would have to be untacked from the wooden deck and taken the small ?Blue Room? deck: door to be placed on a? drying rack. 3.8- To. facilitate the additional paint sessions and increased Ttatslitnie. of work, Moi installed additional. deck lighting- for longer painting Sessions during the Summer months. He also brought-in his long-handled rooting blow-torch to gently heat and, ?set? the wet paint so the ?ui shed Works could lac-"removed from. the deck-to make room for- the evening- paint session. 39 Cliihnly- encouraged Moi?s creative additions and ideas. For example,"one session. close to Halloween. in the early 2000s, Moi conceived of a series, and created large orange forms on white and black. back-grounds. Both Moi-and Chihu?ly created 5 l3 REY BUCK RS, {@351 65:1} 1 2st] Fl FTP-1 Ass-N on, Sons 1930 Seance, we ester {an} asescco Pumpkin drawing in white or black paint. Chihuly was enthusiastic about the series and spent the next several paint sessions creating additional Pumpkin drawings. va?wl 1111,. spit: 'i . -. lulu 21:. Images ofthe ?Pumpkin" series used on Chihulv's Facebook page for posts in 2013, 2014, and 2015. 3.10 The paint sessions continued in this manner until approximately 2005, differing only on the rare occasions where Chihuly brought in additional help. Chihuly would occasionally bring in photographers and videographers to shoot painting sessions. Moi believes two of these people were studio staff. Others also documented the process through polaroid photographs and other forms. 3.11 In general, Studio staff and the glassblowers working downstairs were prohibited from accessing the deck, the Blue Room, and Chihuly?s private quarters, but Moi was granted unfettered access by Chihuly. While he acknowledged Moi?s contributions to his artwork, this acknowledgment was private; Chihuly sought to maintain the illusion both internally and to the public that he was the sole creator. 3.12 One of the more tedious, yet necessary tasks in Chihuly?s growing business was applying his signature to the thousands of highly pro?table Portland Press (now titled ?Chihuly 6 EY BU K. P.S. 1002751653} 1200 FIFTH AVENUE, sum: 190a SEATTLE, WA 93101 P: (206] 436-3000 F: {206) 902-9660 1.0 "l '1 1.2.3 Workshop?) edition glass works, prints, publications and DVDs. 'When Chihuly was. unwilling or unable to complete the tasit of signing the voluminous output he would call on Moi. and O?Neill. Moi assisted O?Neill: holding Portland Press glass edition. piecesso O?Neill could sign, Chihnly?s signature on each: work with a Drenieltool. 3.13 Chihuly?s trust in and dependence on Moi grew over time,_ and Moi. considered Chihaly a close trite?11d. As this friendship and bond deepened, it was anormal .ocenrrenoe for Moi to frequent Chihuly?s priVate listing- qnarters while the artist soaked in and made phone calls- from the white claw foot tub in his libraryfhedroom. Moi and. Chihniy socialized often: sharing many meals together- in Chihnly?s. upstairs kitchen. and drinking heavily while ?Chihuly entertained multiple; girlfriends. The two .1nen also shared Human Growth Hormone (FISH) and Vitamin shots provided by Chihnlyis-doctor. 3.1.4 Chihuly?s up and donor tnanic cycles were a constant dining this same period. At one point= Chihuly 'heeame convinced Q?Neill and Leslie Jackson (then Chihuly?s onfofi' girlfriend and mother of his son. Jackson} were conspiring- against him. As a result, Chi-holy entrusted Moi with original taxes, legal documents, and other correspondence and items of 'a personal nature. Cliihuly instructed Moi to keep these documents safely hidden. Chihnly told Moi care of him? at a later point in time by reaf?rming Moi?s eontribut'ions to. the Chi-huly Studio. Chihnly- assured Moi that the registration and saies departments kept great records, and that M'oi?s share of the pro?ts on the works they created could be readily ascertained and -'would be awarded- at a later date. Speci?cally. Citihnly frequently prom?iSed and assured Moi that when the Studio wound down its operations; Moi would be properly ?nanciail'y' compensated. for his tontrihntions to Chihuiy?s artwork as well as COMPLAINT- 7 Hit-3r its. inmates-I use AVENUE, sens-rand SEATTLE. WA 98101 (one). ass-sonnet his numerous contributions to the Studio. Given that Ch?ihuly and Moi. .had worked together for years, that Chihulyrhad entrusted- Moi with highly personal and private effects as a show. of his trust and confidence in their agreement, belief in Chihuly?s integrity and word, Moi reasonably relied upon Chihuly?s repreSentations and promises. 3.15., In late 2005? IMoi's wife of' Monty-?two years unexpectedly passed away. Devast'ated, Moi went into a-semi-retirement to deal with his personal loss. Moi-lost contact. with. Chihtily for the next two years. 3.16 In early summer of was. asked by O?Neill to assist Ch?ihuly at his paint studiog now located at his Ballard facility, in the creation of a new body o'f-worle This was due to Moiis previous experience as a professional Where he had routinelyI worked with combustible and ?ammable: materials. Moi once again brought in his long and short blow torches, this time. to ?bar'n?i thick. layers- ot?paint' and metallic dust: on works now being created by Chihuly, O?Neill, Piper O?Neill. and Damien Villarreal. Moi attended approximately four more weekend painting. sessions that year to. ?burn?" and ?dust? metallic pigment on backgrounds and to more finished paintings. Moi continued to come in. sporadicail}: approximately. three to. four times per year over the next three years. 3.17 In 2011., Moi resumed his. consistent involvement with Chihuly and. the Chihuly. Studio. Moi had completed a home remodel for Billy O?Neilir now Vice President for? the Chihul-y Studio. Chihuly Visited O'iNeill?s home. and then called Moi to con-intent on how impressed he was with Moi?s work. Chihui}? asked Moi to resume the construction work he. had previously done- t?or him. COMPLAINT- a 217R E-Y res. ratio. FIFTH Manors, SUITE taoo 93101 P: (205} see?soon F: (206) sea-seen 3.18 Chihuly had by that time hired Victor I-lurneniuk as facilities manager for the Chiholy Studio. Humeniuk had been-the manager o.t."the"Salinon Bay Boat Yard and had there met Billyr O'Neill. O?Neill later hired l-lorne'ni'uk to'Work at the. Chihuly Studio. Although his employment was terminated due to allegations of theft. Hrnnenirrk was subsequently ten?hired years later-in the role of facilities manager. 3.19 From that point forward, at Hunteniuk began hiring Moi and Moi?s new wife, Kellie Moi for Various johsin. buildings. in Ballard, Lake-Union, and Tacoma. as well as Dale 311d Leslie ac?lt-son Chihuly's vacation home in Indianola. Washington. 3.20 From 203.2 onward, the Studio once. again called- ropon Moi with increased tirecfnse'nus}r to assist with the execution of large Plexiglas paintings. As the size, scale, and complexity of-Chiholyis paintings ?had increased: so had the process recluired to eiornpiete'the1.n. Now in?rm, Chihuly contributed little to the-"conception or creation process. Yet, despite his incapacity, he still demanded that high volumes. of the lucrative work he produced. At Chihnly?s O?Neill was now directing the process a veritable production line pumping out large the Studio attributed to Chiholy?s own. hand and intended primarily for London. gallery, Halcyon. 3.21 2014: the" demand in Londonfor large scale ?quads" and huge Plexiglas ?light drawings? had increased dramatically. Large numbers of pieces wou'td be laid. out on the painting room ?oor so that Moi remembers Chihuly- reprimanding him and. O?Neil} for leaving footprints on. ?nished drawings. Creating such large-scale works was physically demanding: yet the nature of their creation still demanded Complete -secrec'y and discretion. "even from Chihuly?s own staff. 011 multiple occasions in 201-4, the Studio asked Moi to come to 9 fit-"REY M. {'302751 65:1}- recs Avenue; somerset) W's. 931101 (sea) ass?soon a; (sea) assesse- Chihuly?s Ballard paint studio in the evenings or weekends to paint with Chihuly and O?Neill. Chihuly?s involvement was limited to signing completed works; he played no role in the creative process. Moi painted backgrounds and added drips, dashes and lines to innumerable drawings, paintings, and Plexiglas panelsMichael Moi?s paint spattered pants and shoes from Chihuly?s surreptitious painting sessions. 3.22 During this timeframe, painting session regulars Damien Villarreal and Piper O?Neill were occasionally unable to attend scheduled sessions. When one or both were unable to attend, Chihuly or O?Neill would ask Moi to assist. Other non-studio persons would also occasionally be called in if Villarreal andfor Mrs. O?Neill were absent. Moi remembers the following participants: Mike Robinson, Eric Dunham. Luanna Dunham, Mike So?e, Squire Broel, Roger Ligrano, Ricky Andrews. Chihuly?s physical involvement in the painting process was virtually non-existent during the past decade. COMPLAINT- 10 FREY BUCK. PS. {0027516551} 1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1900 SEATTLE, WA 93101 P: (206] 486-8000 F: (206) 902-9660 2-3 3.23 Iln January 2015, O?Neill was terminated from his employ-merit at Chihuly Studio, From that point forward, Moi?s-eonnection with both the Studio; and Chihuly himself diminished rapidly. Moi- was confused by this but assumed (L?hihulg,r would. eventuaiiy resume the painting sessions and that Moi?s other maintenance contract Work would continue. 33.24. OnSepteniber'E?, 20"i6, Moi?naliy learned the reason. for Chihuly?s unexplained- di'stanee. That day, after lunch at a health}r restaurant, Mr. and Mrs. Moi stopped by theChihile Boathouse for an impromptu. visit to the hotshop. As they pulled up, and his driver and. janitor, Scott. Reswell, were headed towards Rosweli?s company-truck. Chih?ul-y and Moi chatted for a few minutes. As he departed, Chihuly half?heartediy suggested that Moi 'call H'Luiieniuk to inquire about: work- 'on several pending pr'oj cots. 3.2-5 After Chihulj.F and Ros-well ieft, the. Mois stayed behind to _'ta1.l{ to Studio. ernploy'ee, Eddie Reinaly. Remaly- told Moi that the reason he had suffered sharpiy curtailed work with the Studio was due to Moi?s relationship with O?Neill. Rental}; stated that O?Neill had sued the Chihuly' Studio. Moi knew O?Neill had been. ?red, but. he was still unsore. why his: 'h'iendship with O?Neill had resulted'in his own apparent expulsion from the's'tudio. 3.26 On December 2-4, 2016, Moi ?nally heard the. ?full story. Moi had contacted Humeniulc for advice: regarding a vintage car Moi intended to restore. that phone 'call Humeniuk laid bare the entirety of what had. occurred within the Chihuly- Studio since termination. He con?rmedxwhat R'e'rn'a'ly had previously-asserted, nainely'that Moi was no longin- working with the Studio, ?because oi?yonr [Moi?s] connection with Billy [O?Neill]? Hurneniuk then expanded upon Remaiy?s .assertioasregarding the supposed lawsuit-between Billy O?Neill and the. Chihuly- Studio. Humeniuk told. Moi that Villarreal had been terminated as Well, and that, FREY BUCK. RS- 1200 FIFTH AVEN us. Sorta 1900 SEATTLE. 93101 a: (206) {sea} 5202:9650 ?Billy: Piper [O?Neill] and Damien [Villarreal] all seed the Studio because of the work the),r did on. Dale?s paintings? .Huntcnink' said the Studio had conducted extensive employee interviews, particularly :tisated on discreditin?g. non-employee claim. Moi had believed he would be ?taken Care of? by Chihuly. Nov-v shocked, Moi commented to Horneniuk, ?Wait a minute, I worked "on those paintings for years? too. So did you: Victor. Don?t we both have claims?? l-lurn'eniuk agreed. it is unknown whether {halibut}r made- similar promises. of compensation to Hume-nick. 3,2? Hunieniu'k further informed. Moi that since settling with the O?Ne?illis- and VillarreaL-the Chihu?ly Studio had already replaced the :l'orrner secret painting. team with a new group of local. artists and the production process was continuing just as. it had. before, However, I?Iuineniuk said that Chihuly himself hardly ever came to the-Studio anymore: and that his wife was now Studio, 3.28, Because Leslie Chihuljv had no role in the creative process during the seventeen years Moi had interacted with Cilih?lfy? and wasn?t involved in the conversations related to the. terms of future compensation, Moi realized Cbihuly' had intentionally misled him, and that. neither 'C'hihuly nor the Chihuly- Studio was going to. eonipensa'te him for his vea'rs of painting work as promised. The information gained from his phone conversation withIHLuneniuiti veri?ed that Chihuly 1Jv'as repudiati'ng, Moi"'s rights, rights he gained through justifiable and detrimental reliance on Chihulfs speci?c promises and. Chihuly?s? word. 3.29 From the onset of M'o'i?s involvement in the creative process, Chihuly had said that the involvement of Moi and other peopie in the painting process had to be kept secret or the drawings Would have no value. Chihuiy- often joked about the unsophisticated nature of his COMPLAINT-13- FREY tee. -t002?5165:1l '1 see avenue, Sorta taco SEATTLE, weasnn P: (zoo) a; (206} 902-9660 ce'llect'c'rs and-that the}? were only ccneenied. with ??bright enters and in-y- signature?. Chihul'y assured Mei that despite the need the secrecy, his registration department had. taken steps to dnctunent Mci?s "involvement! and it weuld be easy to quantify Mci"s contributions fer the sake of rightful compensation. Chihuly told Mei that he would make .sure Mei 1was properly .c'etnp'ensated- at the right time. CAUSES OF ACTION 4,1 Equitable 4.1.1 Based upon Defendant's? premises and assurances and Plaintiff?s justifiable reliance en same: Defiendants must he esteppe'd ftem asserting astatute cf limitatiens defense. en any-"ciaim in this action. 4.1-2 Defendants acted in bad faith, deceiving Plaintiff, and made .t?al'se assurances tn him that Plaintiff could. nethave diseevered. .in the exercise, of reasonable care. The detail and intricacy cf Defendant. Chihu'l'y?s premises and assurancesi his. close relatienship with the Plaintiff and his consistent treatment of the Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to jestit?ia?h?ljs,r rely en Chihulyis premises. Equitable telling is necessary to prevent injustice. 41.3 Mnrecven denial of Plaintiffs claims ?is inconsistent with Defendant premises and assurances, Because of Plaintiffs justi?able teiiance en premises and assurances, he was prehibited from diligently put-suing his legal remedies, en the faith of Chihuly?s premises and assurances. Defendants. must he. equitably estepped from asserting a statute defense-as it is necessary to prevent a mani?tiest injustice. 4.2. Reliance COMPLAINT-13 BUCK. {unseat ass} FIFTH gist-venue, Bur-ts iseii SEATTLE, WA 98131 P2. (206) ass?seen s; (206) gasses) 10 1-1 12 13 14 15' 11:6 1? 18 "19. 2'0 21 22 23 4.2.21. Defendantsniade a promise to pay later date.- Defendan'ts should have reasonably expected such promise would cause Plaintiff to change position by rendering;-services: to Defendant. Plaintiff was justi?ed inrelying on Defendants? promise; plaintiff materially changed his position to his ?nancial detriment. in reliance on such promise.- Injustice can be avoided only if Defendant?s promise is} enforced. 4.2.2 Plaintiff is entitled to judgment under the theory of Promissory EstoppelfDetrimental Reliance in tantamount. to he proves at trial. 4.3 Declaratorv' Judgment of Co-Authorshin' and Cou?wnershin of Joint Works. Plaintiff Moi. repeats and?incorporates by this 'l'e'feren'ce' each and every allegation set forth 'in? Paragraphs 1. throngh 4.3, inclusive. 4.3.2 There 'isa real and. actual controversy. 4.32.3 Plaintiff Moi. authored originai artistic works with Defendant Chihnly and others bet'Ween 1999 and 201-4: including drawings and paintings on paper, glass, Plexiglas and canvas (collectieely, the ?Joint Work-all). 4.3.4 Plaintiff Moi"s authorship included conceiving and executing the Joint Works. Those contributions were independently copyrightable and represented original artistic- espression. Mel and. Defendant Chihnly intended. their. contributions. to be merged into inseparable or? interdependent parts ofa unitaryr whole. As sueh, the works arejoint works under the Copyright ace 1? LESS. ?lD.l, at sag. 4.3.5 The Joint Works are original works subject to the rights and protections under the Copyright Act, 17 ESE. 101, swag.- 4.3.6 Plaintiff Moi is the {to-owner arise oint Works.- COMPLAINT-.14 FREY PE. tsoo AVENUE-SUITE 1an SE WA, 9310} P: {zest-assesses a (205) 99279660 ''23 Pl'aintiff Moi is entitled to an equal undivided ownership interest in each of the Joint Works,_ including- t?he copyrights in and to each of the Joint Works. 4.3.8 Plain?tiff'Moi was never an employee of Defendants, never agreed in a signed waiting that the Joint Works should be considered works made for hire. and never assigned or transferred any rights. in and to the Joint Works or?the copyrights in-the .Toint Works. 4.3.9 Defendant-s have repudiated Plaintiff Moi?.?s .co?oumershi'p the Joint Works; 4.3.10 By virtue of'the foregoing an actual andjustioiabie controversy exists between Plaintiff Moi and Defendant's concerning Moi?s. status as ace-author and .co-owner of. the Joint Works. 4.3.1.1. Accordingly: Plaintiff Moi is entitled to a declaration that lie is- the co- author and co-owner of the Joint owns an equal undivided interest in each of the Joint Works. 4.4- Accounting of Revenue and Imposition ofCons'tructive Trust. 4.4.1 Plaintiff Moi repeats- and incorporates by this reference each and every "allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.4. inclusive. 4.4.2; Plaintiff Moi is informed. and believes. and based thereon alleges, that Deferidants have and are continuing to receive payments from the sate, use or. other exploitation. of the Joint Works- 4.4.3. Plaintiff Moi is entitled to an accounting of all revenues received or derived by Defendants-from their sale. use or other exploitation. of the ointWorks'. 4.4.4 To theextent that Defendants have received o.r'wili receive any revenues COMPLAIN-T- 15 BUCK P5. {0.0231653} tans Fli-?I?l?I 19in SearrLe. WA 9310": {one} assessor: (ans) gazes-so" -result. of their saie, use or other exploitation of the Joint Works, Defendants hold: those revenues in trust for Plaintiff Moi), pendingan? aeeonnting and distribution to Moi for. his equat undivided interest in the-Joint Works. 4.5 Iniunetive Relief Under VARA. 4.5.1 Plaintiff Moi repeats and incorporates by this reforenee eaeh- and every al'legation'set. tisrth in Paragraphs: 1 through. inclusive. 4.5.2 The Joint Works. are works of'visual art under 17 101 and: 4.5.3 Plaintiff Moi is an author oftlie Joint Works. 4.5.4 Plaintiff Moi never waived his right to claim. authorship of the Joint Works. 4.5.5 Accordingly? 'Piainti'ff Moi is. entitled to claim authorship of the Joint Works under iU?A?aXli?A}. 4.5.6 Plaintiff Mini is entitled to temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive reiiefj restraining; and enjoining defendants from denying-Plaintiff Moi's authorship of' the Joint Works or 'eiainiin'g an interest inconsistent with Moiis [right to eiaini authorship of the Joint. Works. Ad'ditionaliy, Plaintiff Moi is entitled." to remedial injunctive relief eorree?ting anyxm'isstatemeots or misrepresentations by Defendants regarding Moi?s:authorship of- the Joint Works, ineludjn'g any. eiaim?s that those works were solely authored b3r Defendant Chi-hois- COMPLAINT- to I: REY CK. RS. not} FIFTH AVEN on Stars 1.9% wa 93101 {2os) ass-soot) r: (205} sozsaso 1'23' FOR RELIEF UPON THESE ALLEGATIONs. PlaintiffMoi prays for the foilowing relief: A. That'the Court enter a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff Moi authored original. artistic works with Detendant Chihuly and others hetWeen .1999 and Silt-4. B. That the- C-otlrt enter a declaratory judgment that each oftheworks coauthored by 'I?laintiff Moi is a joint work under the'Copyright Act. [1'7 U.S..C.. CI. That the Court enter a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff Moi was not an employee of Defendants within the meaning of USE. and that the works- he cor authored are not works made for hire'thereunder. D. That the Court enter de'olaratory judgment that Plaintiff Moi oWns an equal undivided interest in each of the works he cit?authored.including the edpyrights in and to each of the works. That the Court order Defendants to account to Plaintiff Mei. for all. retrenn'es or other bene?ts "they received or derived from their sale, use or other eXploitation of the-works eo- -authored by Moi. That the Court enter an order declaring that Defendants hold in trust. as construed-ire trustees for the bene?t. of Plaintiff Moi. all revenues or other bene?ts. received. or derived them their sale, use er other exploitation. of. the works eo-anthored by Moi. G. That the Court enter a deciaratory judgment that the works eo-atithored by Moi are-works ofvisuaigart 1? 10] and USE. 106A. H. That the Court-enter a declaratory-judgment that Piaintift' Moi never waited- his 1. 06A. 17' EREY BUCK-1. 1153. {overseen '1 son FIFTH Aver-see. SUITE 11.903 seams. WA aster r: (20.6} 4868000 {206) 902~9660 10322. 23 .I. That the. Court enter a declaratory. judgment? pursuant to 1? that Plaintiff Moi is entitled to claim: authorship of the. works he eo-anth'ored. "That the Court enter'an Order restraining-and enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiff Moiis- authorship of the works. he eorautho'red .or claiming an interest inconsistent. with 'Moi?s right, to o] aim authorship of the works. K. "That. the Court enter an order requiring Defendants to. provide corrective or remedial notice to any persons or entities to whom Defendantshase. denied Plaintiff Men?s authorship of the works he. eta-authored, or to whom Defendant's. have eiaimed an interest inconsistent with Moi?s right of authorship1 inc-hiding any claims that those works were. solely authored by;- Defendant Chihuly. L. That the Court order Defendants, pursuant to 17 .U.S.C. 504th} and to pay notes? or statutory damages to Plaintiff Moi, and any pro?ts of received by Defendants that. are attributable to Defendants? infringements and: pursuant to- 17 USS-.134 enhanced damages for Defendant's? willful infringements of copyrights; M: That the Court order De?endants, pursuant to USE. 505., to pay full costs and reasonabie attorney" fees; N. That the Court order pre? and interest-on. the amount of anyr award. to Plaintiff Moi-L 0., That the Court grant'to Plaintiff Moi such other and. additional- rei-ief as is just and proper. :7 fr" 13 FREY BUCK. as. tzoo FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE tans Seams, WA 93101 P: (205) ass-soon F: (one) see-sees VI. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Moi demands trial by jury of all issues 30 triable. DATED this 161h day of May 2017. COMPLAINT- [9 {002751650 I FREY BUCK, P.S. . ?Anne Bremner, WSBA #13269 Attorney for Plainti?? BUCK. PS. 1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1900 SEATTLE, WA 98101 P: {206) 486-8000 F: (206) 902-9660 Certi?cate of Service The undersigned certi?es under the penalty ofperjury according to the laws of the United States and the State of Washington that on this date I caused to be served in the manner noted below a copy of this document entitled COMPLAINT on the following individuals: Harry Schneider, Jr., WSBA No. 9404 Susan Foster, WSBA No. 18030 Will Rave, WSBA No. 29943 Holly Simpkins, WSBA No. 33297 Ulrike Connelly, WSBA No. 424Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98l01 (206) 359-8000 perkinscoicunu Sl?oslcri: perkinscoic.com nerkinscgicront Kennel Aflomeysfor Defendant's Via Facsimile Via First Class Mail Via Messenger Via Electronic Mail DATED this 16?" day of May, 2017, at Seattle, Washington. 20 {002769523} I - I *lha Mal?i a Wgaro Paralegal FREY BUCK R55. 1200 FIFTH AVENUE, sons 1900 SEATTLE, WA 98101 P: (206) 435-3000 F: (206) 902-9660