Woman Demands Royalties on Destroyed Jesus Fresco

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

So, this woman commits breaking and entering (possibly, she could have just gone in during church hours and took the dang thing, so maybe not [unless she went into a part of the church she wasn't supposed to be in, which might then be breaking and entering]), theft, and vandalism, and then demands a cut of the money the church is getting? Well, she has a real low swinging pair, I'll give her that.

But factoring in what Rauten said (Daria FTW by the way), that the church is making people pay to see it rather than the church getting donations, I still think she should get nothing. Well, maybe not nothing. She wants to lawyer up and demand a cut of the money? Church should slap her with the above mentioned charges (and any others she committed that I haven't included, far as I know she could have done more than that).

Rauten:
Please, next time you're going to report on something translated, GET A PROPER GODDAMN TRANSLATION, not Google Translation. She's not demanding her share of donations, she's asking for her share of the entry price.

Two things:

One - Don't yell at me, don't swear at me. It's rude.

Two - I've updated the post to reflect the fact that the church is actually charging for entry and not just accepting donations. Thanks for the clarification.

Oh, and if you're volunteering for future translation duties, let me know. I'll be more than happy to take advantage.

Friv:

Scars Unseen:
I guess my stance on this is a bit controversial, though I don't know why. Yes, she should get a cut. Why? Because the people running the church decided that it has value. If they had done nothing but condemn the act and try to raise money for the painting's restoration, then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the church decided that this incident was something to be capitalized on, and the lady should get royalties for that same as any "artist" would if their "art" was being used for profit.

It's an abomination or it's an asset. Can't have it both ways.

Technically, you can have it both ways, as someone on the facebook feed pointed out.

First, value the fresco she destroyed. Then she gets a cut, but her cut goes to pay for the fresco she destroyed. That should pretty much guarantee that she doesn't get a cent.

Rauten:
Please, next time you're going to report on something translated, GET A PROPER GODDAMN TRANSLATION, not Google Translation. She's not demanding her share of donations, she's asking for her share of the entry price.

Um... she's a vandal. I don't care how the church is using the painting, you do not get royalties for your vandalism. It's like robbing a convenience store, and then when you get caught you say, "But I get to keep the money, right?" Asset forfeiture.

Fappy:
People shouldn't be rewarded for stupidity. Period.

She doesn't deserve a dime from any donations associated with this.

Exactly. Now excuse me while I go hunt down the original Mona Lisa, piss all over it, then demand the French pay me because I "improved" it. I mean, I did all the work, I flew there, I drank water and ate a ton of asparagus, I unlawfully altered a priceless piece of work without any written, verbal, or even god-given form of consent...

Y U NO PAY FRENCHIES?!

Though, I could also possibly go after Italy too, hm...

Captcha: My beating heart
Dear god, brilliant! After I "improve" the Mona Lisa, I'll hunt down Edgar Allen Poe's original copies of his work and change it as well!

Ryans Solution:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
Wow. She does realize she destroyed a beautiful piece of art, right?
I'm not christian, but I have to say I enjoy art, and art like that is a piece of history, that she just kurfuckled all over.
She should be fined for what she did. Not rewarded.

Exactly, agreed fully. Anyway how does destroying art equal money?

Quite simple really: people are willing to pay admission fee to go and watch the piece. Opinions on the quality of her "work" are quite irrelevant, as it can be objectively proven that her actions turned out to be a major source of income.

Her "destroying" the painting certainly equalled money. The interesting question is whether she can lay any kind of claim on her work, or whether the church owning the painting by default negates any claims.
If she had been hired to refurbish the painting there would've been a contract, stipulating the reward for her work, and barring her from making any future claims to profits.

It comes down to whether work done without a legally binding contract is recognised under law as work done, including inferred intellectual property on her creation.

I wouldn't bet on her winning this. Likewise I also wouldn't bet on the church winning the case if it tried to sue her for damages.

Scars Unseen:
Did you look at the link I provided? Someone put a plastic statue of Jesus in a jar of his own piss, took a picture of it, and won an award. If that's art, then Sasquatch Jesus is gallery worthy at least. And again, I wouldn't count on the legal issue being as clear cut as you make out. We're talking two entirely different branches of law colliding with one party trying to make money off of the whole thing. It should be simple, but I doubt that it will be.

You're kidding yourself if you think I'm going to look at that link lol. I don't need to look, I get your point.

It depends on your functioning definition of art, which is famously hard to define. Like I said, if you want to say that anything and everything is art, like pissing on Jesus, knock yourself out. I disagree, and I don't see the attraction in that view, but it's really a matter of perspective. I kind of suspect people hold this view because of the "video games aren't art" debate. Somehow, "the nature of art makes it nonsense to say that a medium isn't or can't be art" got morphed into "the nature of art makes it nonsense to say that literally any one thing isn't or can't be art". Anyway, this painting is not art in my view. And even if it was, no one is appreciating it as art. People are paying to see it because it is a curiosity.

We are not talking about two entirely different branches of law colliding, one party is trying to scam the other party, and it really is that simple. I can't smear shit on your face and say you're my slave now. I really thought that house metaphor illustrated my point pretty well. I can't claim ownership of your things on the basis that I vandalized them.

Fine. Counter-sue her ass for vandalizing and destroying your painting in the first place. Then make the claim that she isn't entitle to compensation since she did unrequested work and actually harmed something you posses, thus she has no ownership rights. I don't care if her ass was lucky, she still screwed up the painting.

Kargathia:
The interesting question is whether she can lay any kind of claim on her work, or whether the church owning the painting by default negates any claims.

If there are any EU rulings that recognize graffiti as art she probably has a strong case . . . . but otherwise I suspect she's out of luck. Rather than trying to get a cut of the money she should just be happy its prophetability [sic] likely prevents them from suing her.

If the church is smart they're putting most of the funds into an account for future restoration work. I imagine once the tourist dollars stop rushing in they'll want their old Jesus picture back. Then again, they could always start worshiping damn dirty apes.

She's lucky the church and the daughter didn't sue her in the first place. Greedy old cow.

Kargathia:
Quite simple really: people are willing to pay admission fee to go and watch the piece. Opinions on the quality of her "work" are quite irrelevant, as it can be objectively proven that her actions turned out to be a major source of income.

Her "destroying" the painting certainly equalled money. The interesting question is whether she can lay any kind of claim on her work, or whether the church owning the painting by default negates any claims.
If she had been hired to refurbish the painting there would've been a contract, stipulating the reward for her work, and barring her from making any future claims to profits.

It comes down to whether work done without a legally binding contract is recognised under law as work done, including inferred intellectual property on her creation.

I wouldn't bet on her winning this. Likewise I also wouldn't bet on the church winning the case if it tried to sue her for damages.

It's obvious the money would not be there without that woman, but it's equally obvious she is not entitled to get any of it. The painting isn't "her work" or even "work", she vandalized someone's shit and she is not entitled to benefit from that act. I have no idea how the Spanish system works but based on what I'm reading here the suit is outrageous and frivolous.

Ryans Solution:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
Wow. She does realize she destroyed a beautiful piece of art, right?
I'm not christian, but I have to say I enjoy art, and art like that is a piece of history, that she just kurfuckled all over.
She should be fined for what she did. Not rewarded.

Exactly, agreed fully. Anyway how does destroying art equal money?

When the destruction is performance art.

Hungry Donner:

Kargathia:
The interesting question is whether she can lay any kind of claim on her work, or whether the church owning the painting by default negates any claims.

If there are any EU rulings that recognize graffiti as art she probably has a strong case . . . . but otherwise I suspect she's out of luck. Rather than trying to get a cut of the money she should just be happy its prophetability [sic] likely prevents them from suing her.

If the church is smart they're putting most of the funds into an account for future restoration work. I imagine once the tourist dollars stop rushing in they'll want their old Jesus picture back. Then again, they could always start worshiping damn dirty apes.

The graffiti comparison is quite apt, as it shares both the vandalism aspect, and the appreciation for the work.
The legal questions remain unanswered though: to the best of my knowledge no graffiti artist ever demanded a cut from increased profits his or her work generated.

Some of Banksy's work has been sold at auction (eg. the demolished phone booth), so one would assume property overrides any claims made by the artist.
Of course, this is Banksy we're talking about - even if he had a legal basis to claim he probably wouldn't.

I'm about 99% sure though there is no ruling by the EU recognising the value of graffiti on public property, or any claims the creator might have.

Rooster Cogburn:
It's obvious the money would not be there without that woman, but it's equally obvious she is not entitled to get any of it. The painting isn't "her work" or even "work", she vandalized someone's shit and she is not entitled to benefit from that act. I have no idea how the Spanish system works but based on what I'm reading here the suit is outrageous and frivolous.

The new painting is definitely recognised as her work - nobody is disputing that she, in fact, was the one to give the object its new look.
Do remember that courts of law don't deal with loose terms as "she vandalised someone's shit": they call experts, and deal with facts.

Experts provide an opinion on the artistic merit of her paintjob - in this case that would be "absolutely nothing", and the facts would deal with the commercial value of the painting, as any claim for damages would be primarily based on that.

That is where it gets interesting, as she definitely increased the commercial value of the painting, while completely ruining any artistic or historic worth it might have had.

What matters here is that it belonged to someone else, and whether she can claim intellectual property on an act of vandalism. On the whole I suspect you're right, and the suit is going to be thrown out as frivolous.

The7Sins:
She needs to be thrown in jail for stealing

Wait....How do you steal a fresco? I'm calling bullshit.

This is just stupid, she has no right to that money. This would be like that guy that damaged the Monet in Ireland asking for money. If they didn't press charges before they should now just because she has the gall to ask for that.

Kargathia:
Some of Banksy's work has been sold at auction (eg. the demolished phone booth), so one would assume property overrides any claims made by the artist.
Of course, this is Banksy we're talking about - even if he had a legal basis to claim he probably wouldn't.

This wouldn't make any sense. If somebody spray paints a picture of a dick on a car and the car becomes internationally famous for some reason, ownership of the car doesn't transfer to the dick sprayer, it's ridiculous, people wouldn't have to steal cars, just tag them and post pictures online everywhere. It's silly. Banksy makes work to sell, which he owns, I'm sure a bunch of his work has been sold by the people that actually own the item he tagged.

But the people paying to get into the church are attracted by the infamy of this old bat's monumentous fuck-up not her artistic ability. If I killed a bunch of people in my house, was then sent to prison and my landlord sold tickets to the crazy killers house of doom I would'nt get a taste

Ryans Solution:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
Wow. She does realize she destroyed a beautiful piece of art, right?
I'm not christian, but I have to say I enjoy art, and art like that is a piece of history, that she just kurfuckled all over.
She should be fined for what she did. Not rewarded.

Exactly, agreed fully. Anyway how does destroying art equal money?

I mean fuck, I'll get a green crayola marker and ruin the Mona Lisa if people would pay me.
Does that sound the intelligent in the slightest? What's wrong with the human race?

Do4600:

Kargathia:
Some of Banksy's work has been sold at auction (eg. the demolished phone booth), so one would assume property overrides any claims made by the artist.
Of course, this is Banksy we're talking about - even if he had a legal basis to claim he probably wouldn't.

This wouldn't make any sense. If somebody spray paints a picture of a dick on a car and the car becomes internationally famous for some reason, ownership of the car doesn't transfer to the dick sprayer, it's ridiculous, people wouldn't have to steal cars, just tag them and post pictures online everywhere. It's silly. Banksy makes work to sell, which he owns, I'm sure a bunch of his work has been sold by the people that actually own the item he tagged.

Do note that in this case the woman is not claiming ownership of the fresco, but a share from the increased income the church had due to her actions. The claim is based on the premise of her having intellectual property, not physical.

Otherwise I already stated that I think law would agree with you that laying claims to profits generated by objects you illegally altered is downright silly.

Pipotchi:
But the people paying to get into the church are attracted by the infamy of this old bat's monumentous fuck-up not her artistic ability. If I killed a bunch of people in my house, was then sent to prison and my landlord sold tickets to the crazy killers house of doom I would'nt get a taste

That's why you draw up the contracts before you go on a three-day murder spree.

Do4600:
Wait....How do you steal a fresco? I'm calling bullshit.

I don't know if she should be thrown in jail, but several things from both this and the original escapist article imply to me that the painting is mobile. Cut out of the wall, perhaps? Plaster was never attached? I'unno.

I agree with you about the rest. The guy who tortures me in his basement for ten years doesn't get to sue me for the profits from the book I write about it. Even if he is directly responsible for that profit.

Andy Chalk:

One - Don't yell at me, don't swear at me. It's rude.

I'd say that so is to report something as true using a faulty translation without bothering to check up.

Andy Chalk:
Oh, and if you're volunteering for future translation duties, let me know. I'll be more than happy to take advantage.

Hah, no.

Andy Chalk:
The idea of claiming destruction as a form of creation is interesting (and a bit mind-boggling)

It is, isn't it? Jake & Dinos Chapman did rather well out of that, when they defaced pristine Goya prints to make their Insult to Injury series. Nor do I think the Chapmans were the first; but their work did get nominated for a Turner prize, for what that's worth. I would have liked to have seen it, but I never got the chance.

Nuke_em_05:

Less drastic; if I build a shed on your yard without your permission, do I now have ownership of your yard?

Counterpoint: If you build a shed on my yard, and then lot's of people come to see it, and I charge people for viewing your shed, would you not feel entitled to a portion of my proceeds. I am, in fact, making money off of your work, I did nothing to earn it.

Sure, she accomplished this through stupidity, not talent, but it was still her accomplishment. Without her the church wouldn't be making any of this extra money, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch for her to gain some of it.

I don't see the issue. Lady massively improves painting for free and the church keeps the money, should've signed a contract before hand love.

Karloff:
It is, isn't it? Jake & Dinos Chapman did rather well out of that, when they defaced pristine Goya prints to make their Insult to Injury series. Nor do I think the Chapmans were the first; but their work did get nominated for a Turner prize, for what that's worth. I would have liked to have seen it, but I never got the chance.

I'm inclined to take a more direct, simplistic view of it: A lot of pretentious twats get away with pretentious twattery because nobody wants to call them on it. The only art in much of what counts as art these days is convincing people that it is, in fact, art; and even that is becoming a bit of a fish in a barrel, particularly in this age of irony.

It's more than a little reminiscent of the French "artist" who vandalized a painting by kissing it and getting lipstick on it a few years back, but in that case the damage was intentional and the outcome more appropriately punitive. One's an innocent fuckup, one's attention-whoring for "art," so I can see letting the former slide. But profiting off it doesn't sit right.

Not G. Ivingname:
Did you paint the original? No.

Were you sanctioned to restore this? No.

Did you have a valid contract with the town, church, or anything else? NO.

Now tell me why you deserve royalities for destroying a piece of art?

This.

Donations or admission fees, the crazy lady who epically wrecked the painting doesn't deserve a cent.

Woodsey:
Clearly she's got a big, swinging set of balls - you've got to give her that, at least.

Something tells me it's not actually the old lady that's doing it. Judging by what she did, she's likely somewhat addled by age, and since the article says specifically "her family", I think it's a safe assumption that one of her kids/grandkids are the ones pushing the issue.

She wants royalties? She should get a prison sentence for vandalism instead.

Agayek:

Woodsey:
Clearly she's got a big, swinging set of balls - you've got to give her that, at least.

Something tells me it's not actually the old lady that's doing it. Judging by what she did, she's likely somewhat addled by age, and since the article says specifically "her family", I think it's a safe assumption that one of her kids/grandkids are the ones pushing the issue.

To be honest, I was just going for the slightly-sickening imagery.

I'm an atheist.

What she did to the painting was absolutely criminal. Doesn't matter if I'm an atheist or not. Destruction of our heritage is criminal.

this whole situation is disgusting on both ends. i don't even know how to respond to it. careful, participants, your humanity's showing... >.> ugh.

Well, considering how she ruined a priceless piece of art she should be happy she isn't in jail. Why would she deserve royalties when she was being completely pants-on-head-retarded?

So I guess she's not being sued into oblivion for destroying the painting in the first place?

Kyrinn:
Demanding royalties on donations...pretty greasy indeed. No one is making a profit from this so I don't see why she would be entitled to a cut (assuming the church is acting as it should anyway).

The painting has become a magnet for tourists and curiosity-seekers, but while visits skyrocketed, donations didn't, which eventually led the church to begin charging for admission. That started the cash flowing, to the tune of €2000 ($2600) in just four days.

Did you read the OP?

OT: Charging for admission? Disgusting. Yet again, the Church appalls me.

Bobic:

Nuke_em_05:

Less drastic; if I build a shed on your yard without your permission, do I now have ownership of your yard?

Counterpoint: If you build a shed on my yard, and then lot's of people come to see it, and I charge people for viewing your shed, would you not feel entitled to a portion of my proceeds. I am, in fact, making money off of your work, I did nothing to earn it.

Sure, she accomplished this through stupidity, not talent, but it was still her accomplishment. Without her the church wouldn't be making any of this extra money, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch for her to gain some of it.

Additional point: Your yard had significant sentimental value for you and your family (graves or something, I don't know), and this guy came in and destroyed it, replacing it with a money-making machine.

Sure, you get money now, but at a loss of something with real non-monetary value.

As far as I'm concerned, the hypothetical shed-builder isn't entitled to shit, since any money made is just making up for a priceless work being lost.

chadachada123:

Bobic:

Nuke_em_05:

Less drastic; if I build a shed on your yard without your permission, do I now have ownership of your yard?

Counterpoint: If you build a shed on my yard, and then lot's of people come to see it, and I charge people for viewing your shed, would you not feel entitled to a portion of my proceeds. I am, in fact, making money off of your work, I did nothing to earn it.

Sure, she accomplished this through stupidity, not talent, but it was still her accomplishment. Without her the church wouldn't be making any of this extra money, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch for her to gain some of it.

Additional point: Your yard had significant sentimental value for you and your family (graves or something, I don't know), and this guy came in and destroyed it, replacing it with a money-making machine.

Sure, you get money now, but at a loss of something with real non-monetary value.

As far as I'm concerned, the hypothetical shed-builder isn't entitled to shit, since any money made is just making up for a priceless work being lost.

Was something totally priceless really lost though, or was a generic, 1 of a million, Jesus looking off at an angle painting, that no one had heard of, nor cared about, replaced with a painting that became international news?

Methinks, this new 'edit' may also be priceless. At least, ignoring the price of admission the church has added to the painting.

If she wins her case, i'm doing the same.

*looks up list of ancient artefacts ideally in neglected churches and holy places*

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here