Art Law at America 250: Gilbert Stuart’s Art Battles and National Imagination

June 28, 2026

Gilbert Stuart, George Washington (The Athenaeum Portrait) (painting 1796) with a dollar bill, photographed by Hannah Gadway (2023).
Copies of the painting held by National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

By Hannah Gadway

You likely know Gilbert Stuart’s artwork, even if you don’t recognize his name. His painting of George Washington, which graces the one dollar bill, is perhaps one of America’s most iconic images. Stuart’s depictions of Washington are everywhere: in our pockets, in transformations by legendary artists like Andy Warhol, and sitting in countless American museums and history books.

Stuart’s painting did not reach legendary status in American art without effort. Despite being highly praised in his own time, Stuart faced difficulties in controlling the afterlives of his work.^[1] In a time when American copyright law was not designed for visual artists and phrases like “intellectual property” were rarely associated with paintings, Stuart was remarkably aware of his artistic rights and protected them fiercely.^[2] His dedication to maintaining artistic control over his portraits is part of why his art is today synonymous with Washington’s name.

In light of the United States’ 250th anniversary, this article aims to explore how one artist attempted to shape the visual legacy of George Washington during the nation’s infancy, and how Stuart’s search for artistic autonomy reveals the contours of the early 19th century art law landscape.

Gilbert Stuart and the Quest to Define Washington’s Visual Identity

Gilbert Stuart was born in 1755 in Rhode Island.^[3] Despite being now linked to many revolutionary figures, he was not a dedicated patriot. As the American Revolution stirred in 1775, he escaped the country to pursue a painting career under a fellow Loyalist, Benjamin West.^[4] In Great Britain, Stuart’s realistic portraiture rendered him extremely successful. Still, the artist faced financial difficulties due to lavish spending.^[5]

In 1794, fearing creditors in both England and Ireland, he returned to America with a specific goal: to paint George Washington.^[6] Stuart was convinced that achieving this would clear his debts, writing: “There I expect to make a fortune by Washington alone. I calculate upon making a plurality of his portraits […]; and if I should be fortunate, I will repay my English and Irish creditors.”^[7]

Stuart was equally successful in the United States as in Britain. Loyalists fleeing the colonies during the Revolution resulted in a dearth of trained artists.^[8] Stuart’s realistic style and high-end credentials quickly boosted his reputation. He used his popularity to immediately pursue his financial goals. After obtaining a letter of introduction from John Jay,^[9] Stuart sat with Washington three times between 1795 and 1796, creating the likenesses that were forever to be associated with the Founding Father. The most famous of these pictures, the unfinished Athenaeum Portrait (named after the Boston Athenaeum, which was the painting’s original purchaser), is the basis for the one dollar bill.^[10]

In the era before photography, every detail in a portrait was purposeful, and paying attention to an artist’s choices can help us understand a sitter’s character. Stuart displayed Washington as an everyday gentleman (albeit a very wealthy one), and did not depict him in the finery of a king or the uniform of a military figure. Washington is shown as stately, calm, and even slightly aloof, but never arrogant. These choices showed that the new figure of the president was to be a respected equal, not an overlording king.^[11]

Whatever message Stuart attempted to communicate with his Washington portraits, they were financially successful. Stuart’s debt-related woes made him aware of his labor’s worth and territorial about the distribution of his pictures. He used the original three pictures to reproduce and sell over 100 Washington portraits, often charging more than $100 per head.^[12] He also paid an engraver to distribute the image and took a share of the proceeds.^[13] In taking control of the artistic trade surrounding Washington images, Stuart also made sure that his visual identity would be identified with the early American leader.

At first, it seemed that Stuart’s American dream of financial freedom based on George Washington had come true.

Unflattering Imitation: Stuart’s Copiers

Although Stuart was happy to capitalize on the popularity of his Washington reproductions, he quickly discovered that others also wanted to disseminate his image.

Before photography, paintings often reached the general public through engraved prints. Stuart, trained in England, would have been aware of this lucrative trade. Typically, contractual arrangements dictated paintings’ fate as they entered into the realm of engravings. Artists would strike bargains with engravers; access to an original was granted in exchange for a share of a print’s proceeds.^[14] In Britain, organizations like the Royal Academy contributed to the rise of the idea that painting was both an artistic process and an intellectual endeavor that granted some ownership, or intellectual property, rights to an image holder.^[15] Engravings were also legally protected in England; under the 1735 Engravings Act, exclusive printing rights were granted to the engraver for fourteen years after an engraving’s creation.^[16]

After Washington’s death in 1799, the public was eager to commemorate him through prints. While Stuart had devised a careful system of distributing copies in America, this process was wrenched out of his hands in England.^[17] Stuart had created a full-length portrait of Washington for the U.S. Senator William Bingham.^[18] Bingham gifted the work to the Marquis of Lansdowne, who showed the picture publicly in England, to much attention.^[19]

Verbally, Stuart asked for the image of Washington to not be copied in England without permission.^[20] But this agreement never reached the Marquis, who allowed an unauthorized engraving to be done by James Heath, a popular Royal Academy engraver.^[21] Heath incorrectly attributed the original work to “Gabriel Stuart” rather than Gilbert.^[22] Stuart had tried to circulate his own engraving in England through Benjamin West beforehand, but he was too late.^[23]

Stuart first learned of the copycat engraving in a Philadelphia printshop.^[24] He attempted to confront Bingham and request compensation for the Heath engraving, but he was rebuffed since no promise regarding engravings existed in writing.^[25] Since the print was originally created in England, and Stuart had no interest in returning there, he did not pursue legal action against Lansdowne or Heath.^[26]

Despite lacking legal recourse against Heath, Stuart publicly decried unauthorized copying. In 1800, he published a scathing condemnation of the engravings in the Philadelphia Aurora, writing:

Though Mr. Stuart cannot but complain of this invasion of his Copy-right (a right always held sacred to the Artist, and expressly reserved on this occasion, as a provision for a numerous family) he derives some consolation from remarking, that the manner of executing Mr. Heath’s engraving, cannot satisfy or supersede the public claim, for a correct representation of the American Patriot.^[27]

This was followed by an advertisement for Stuart-approved Washington prints.^[28] Stuart’s claim to his “sacred” right displays that even as American copyright law focused on printed materials, artists were aware that paintings could also constitute intellectual property.

Taking Action: Stuart v. Sword

Burned by the Heath engraving, Stuart aggressively shielded his American monopoly over Washington pictures. Eventually, he turned to the legal system to defend his work.

Stuart faced a large hurdle in his quest: in the early United States, artists could not pursue action against copied paintings under copyright law. The first Copyright Act, signed into law by Washington himself in 1790, chiefly focused on maps and books.^[29] The visual arts, including paintings, would not be officially integrated under the Copyright Act until its 1870 amendment.^[30]

Stuart used contract law instead of copyright to ensure that his paintings would not be duplicated. When selling Washington reproductions, he forced patrons to promise to refrain from creating illicit copies. The success of this strategy is exemplified in Stuart’s legal case against John Sword, an American merchant and seaman.

In March of 1801, Sword purchased a copy of a Washington picture from Stuart, telling the artist that the purchase was for a “gentleman from Virginia.”^[31] He explicitly promised Stuart to refrain from copying the image.^[32] Yet, on a trip to China, Sword commissioned 100 glass-painted copies of the picture, which he then imported to the United States for sale.^[33]

Stuart quickly found out about this double-cross and took action, filing a complaint against Sword in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.^[34] Although Stuart was from the United States, he was born before the Revolution, making him a British citizen able to present a case in federal court against Sword, an American citizen. Stuart argued that Sword broke his oral promise by creating the prints and sought an injunction against further sales.^[35] The court granted Stuart’s injunction under his breach of contract theory.^[36]

Although presented as a contract case instead of a copyright case, Stuart’s complaint demonstrates that artists could still establish artistic autonomy and ownership through alternative legal pathways during the early years of the United States.

Conclusion: The Power of an Image

While Stuart found some success in his action against Sword, he was never able to take complete artistic control over the reproduction of his George Washington paintings. Copies proliferated in the United States and England, often without benefitting Stuart financially. Even our currency’s engraving of Washington, which first began to be printed on the American dollar in the early 20th century, is unrelated to any authorized Stuart engraving.^[37] The sheer number of illicit Stuart copies spread through the nation probably contributed to the fact that the artist’s images are still popular today.

Despite copyright law’s inability to adequately actualize Stuart’s vision of art as sacred intellectual property, Stuart was able to use contract law and the media to ensure that his artistic integrity was preserved to some degree. To this day, Stuart’s image is ingrained in Americans’ understanding of the first President. As John Neal, a 19th-century critic, wrote: “Though a better likeness of him were shown to us, we should reject it; for, the only idea that we now have of George Washington, is associated with Stuart’s Washington.” ^[38] Both because of and in spite of copyright law’s failures, Stuart’s art still defines our national imagination of Washington. Additionally, the failures of copyright law to assist painters in Stuart’s time helped encourage the eventual 1870 extension of statutory copyright to paintings.^[39]

Art law powerfully shapes how the American public understands its own history. Images of the Presidents (and how the law dictates who can control them) still affect Americans today. President Trump recently proposed creating a commemorative $250 bill featuring his own visage for the nation’s 250th birthday.^[40] Under current law, U.S. currency may only feature the portrait of a deceased person, but a bill is currently pending to change that legislation.^[41] Stuart’s choice to depict Washington as an everyday citizen affected how we see the first President today; how will President Trump’s attempt to display himself in this medium affect his own legacy? Time will tell, but perhaps Stuart’s story can be instructive.

At America 250, it is reassuring to know that art law has been relevant since the nation’s beginning. Gilbert Stuart’s attempts to use the law to control his art demonstrate that artists have always wanted to shape their legacies. And, in turn, art law and the images that it protects will always have the potential to shape the next era of American history.

About the Author:

Hannah Gadway is a student at Harvard Law School and a Summer 2026 legal intern with the Center for Art Law. She graduated from Harvard College in 2025, where she majored in History & Literature. She has art history experience from working at the Harvard Art Museums. Hannah is interested in art law-related questions concerning museum provenance and the Internet.

Suggested Readings and Videos:

• Carrie Barratt and Ellen Miles, Gilbert Stuart, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (2004).
• Maggie Cao, Washington in China: A Media History of Reverse Painting on Glass (2015)
• Marie Stéphanie Delamaire and Will Slauter, Circulation and Control: Artistic Culture and Intellectual Property in the Nineteenth Century (2021).
• Robert Brauneis, Understanding Copyright’s First Encounter with the Fine Arts: A Look at the Legislative History of the Copyright Act of 1870, Case Western Reserve Law Review (2020)
• The International Fine Prints and Drawings Association and Marie-Stéphanie Delamaire, Gilbert Stuart, the Print Trade, and the Genesis of Art as Intellectual Property in the USA (2021).

Select References:

1. Areeba Ahmad, Gilbert Stuart, MOUNT VERNON DIGITAL ENCYC. (2026),https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/gilbert-stuart-1755-1828. ↑
2. See generally Robert Brauneis, Understanding Copyright’s First Encounter With the Fine Arts: ALook at the Legislative History of the Copyright Act of 1870, CAS. W. RES. L. REV. (2020), https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2842&context=faculty_publications. ↑
3. Bryan Zygmont, Gilbert Stuart, The Skater, SMARTHISTORY (Apr. 23 2024), https://smarthistory.org/gilbert-stuart-the-skater/. ↑
4. Id. ↑
5. Gilbert Stuart, Artist and Entertainer, NAT’L PORTRAIT GALLERY BLOG (2008), https://npg.si.edu/blog/gilbert-stuart-artist-and-entertainer. ↑
6. Bryan Zygmont, Gilbert Stuart’s Lansdowne Portrait, SMARTHISTORY (Aug. 9 2015), https://smarthistory.org/gilbert-stuarts-lansdowne-portrait/. ↑
7. John Hill Morgan, Gilbert Stuart: An Illustrated Descriptive List of His Works Compiled by Lawerence Park at 44 (1926). ↑
8. Margaretta M. Lovell, Art, Violence, and the American Revolution, COMMONPLACE (2014), https://commonplace.online/article/art-violence-american-revolution/. ↑
9. Michael Hussey, Before Andy Warhol Set His Eyes on Marilyn and Prince, There Was Gilbert Stuart and George Washington, SMITHSONIAN MAG. (Jun. 3 2024), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/before-andy-warhol-set-his-eyes-on-marilyn-and-prince-there-was-gilbert-stuart-and-george-washington-180984407/. ↑
10. George Washington (The Athenaeum Portrait), NAT’L PORTRAIT GALLERY (2026), https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.80.115. ↑
11. Hannah Gadway, “George Washington,” Harvard Art Museums: In Your Hands (2025). ↑
12. Brauneis, supra note 2 at 618. ↑
13. Morgan, supra note 7. ↑
14. Marie-Stéphanie Delamaire, “Who Owns Washington? Gilbert Stuart and the Battle for ArtisticProperty in the Early American Republic,” Circulation and Control: Artistic Culture and Intellectual Property in the Nineteenth Century at 96 (2021), https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0247.pdf. ↑
15. Isabella Alexander and Cristina S. Martinez, “The First Copyright Case underthe 1735 Engravings Act,” Circulation and Control: Artistic Culture and Intellectual Property in the Nineteenth Century at 43 (2021), https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0247.pdf. ↑
16. Id. at 42. ↑
17. George Champlin Mason, The Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart at 91 (1894), https://books.google.com/books?id=uidAAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA95&dq=%22provide%20for%20a%20numerous%20family%20at%20the%20close%20of%20an%20anxious%20life%22&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q=%22provide%20for%20a%20numerous%20family%20at%20the%20close%20of%20an%20anxious%20life%22&f=false. ↑
18. Id. at 91. ↑
19. Id. at 93. ↑
20. Carrie Barratt and Ellen Miles, Gilbert Stuart, THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART at 173 (2004), https://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15324coll10/id/74809. ↑
21. Id. ↑
22. Id. ↑
23. Id. ↑
24. Id. ↑
25. Id. at 174. ↑
26. Michael Hussey, supra note 9. ↑
27. Gilbert Stuart, Washington, PHILADELPHIA AURORA GENERAL ADVERTISER, Jun 12, 1800, at pg. 3. ↑
28. Id. ↑
29. The 18th Century, COPYRIGHT.GOV (2026), https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/timeline_18th_century.html. ↑
30. Id. ↑
31. Stuart v. Sword, NAT’L ARCHIVES, Records of District Courts of the United States, G21.40.2 (E.D. Pa. 1802). ↑
32. Id. ↑
33. Id. ↑
34. Id. ↑
35. Id. ↑
36. Id. ↑
37. Paul Aron, A Head for Money, COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG (Apr. 15 2016), https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/resource-hub/trend-tradition-magazine/trend-tradition-spring-2016/a-head-for-money/. ↑
38. Washington, Washington Everywhere, NAT’L PORTRAIT GALLERY BLOG (2026), https://npg.si.edu/blog/washington-washington-everywhere. ↑
39. Brauneis, supra note 2 at 619. ↑
40. Kwasi Asiedu, US government prepares to print $250 note featuring Trump’s face, BBC, 28 May 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clypeyx6nemo. ↑
41. Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act, H.R. 1761, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1761. ↑