AITA for being upset that an old teammate took credit for our public art project and now wants my help on their new one?

Someone spent months pitching ideas, filling out endless paperwork, chasing insurance, crunching budgets, and sorting every logistical detail for a massive public sculpture. In the end, their name—and their partner’s got pushed to the corner of a plaque while a teammate who barely lifted a finger beyond building a basic frame walked away with top billing.

The project started as a true team effort, with everyone from LED programmers to frame builders getting equal credit on the original signs. But after the exhibit wrapped, the college rolled out new articles and signage that lifted the main contributor’s own words to praise Z as the visionary leader, sidelining the real drivers and even botching technical facts.

‘AITA for being upset that an old teammate took credit for our public art project and now wants my help on their new one?’

The trouble began when the original poster and their partner dreamed up a large-scale public sculpture, got it greenlit, and recruited Z simply to assist with the build:

Months later, the college published pieces and installed plaques naming Z the lead creator—using text straight from the OP’s files:

Now Z keeps messaging for copies of those same design and logistics files to use as templates—for his own solo submission to the very same event:

Later updates reveal the OP reluctantly sent the files after Z guilt-tripped them, and they’re still battling the college for fair credit:

At its heart, this boils down to uneven recognition in a group creative project. The OP and their partner handled the heavy lifting—concept, paperwork, funding, logistics—while Z’s role stayed limited to crafting a wooden support. Yet Z emerged publicly as the driving force after reaching out to media himself and feeding them selective details.

Z might argue the frame formed the sculpture’s backbone or that the college shaped the narrative for promotional reasons. Still, proactively supplying information and then staying quiet about clear inaccuracies chips away at any claim of innocence. These kinds of credit grabs happen frequently in collaborative art when leadership and contribution levels aren’t explicitly defined from day one.

Art psychologist Jessica Backus, discussing collaboration in creative fields through the American Psychological Association, points out that undervalued artists often carry lasting bitterness, particularly when public acknowledgment impacts future opportunities. She stresses that solid records and upfront agreements on attribution are crucial to avoid exploitation.

For moving forward, the OP should compile every piece of evidence—emails, proposals, timelines—and submit a calm, documented request to the college’s communications or administration team asking for updates to both the article and plaque. If resistance persists, sharing the documented timeline on personal sites or art networks can set the record straight publicly without escalating dramatically. Above all, cutting professional ties with Z protects future work from similar risks.

Here’s what people had to say to OP:

Folks online almost unanimously backed the OP, calling out Z’s behavior and urging decisive action:

Many went straight for zero contact while pushing hard for corrections:

Several highlighted the irony and the value of holding firm to personal ethics:

Others demanded proof-driven fixes and warned against future collaboration:

The shorter takes carried the same intensity:

A few simply sought clarification without changing the overall judgment:

This situation shines a harsh light on the pitfalls of creative teamwork. When credit isn’t locked down early and clearly, the smallest contributor can sometimes claim the spotlight—especially if they’re willing to stay silent while others get erased.

The overwhelming online support shows most people see the OP’s frustration and reluctance to help again as entirely reasonable. Have you ever dealt with uneven credit in a group project? How far would you go to correct a public record like this—and what steps would you take upfront next time to prevent it?