Woman Demands Royalties on Destroyed Jesus Fresco

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

The Cheshire:
Wow wow, people, most of you are waaaay misinformed about this. I live in Spain, in fact I don't live far away from Borja, and over here the perspective on this news is... well, different. So let me set a few points.

1. The original painting was not a priceless, valuable or fantastic work of art. It was a third rate academic painting from the late 19th century. In this country we have so many paintings like that... geez, I could go to the church in the corner of my street and find at least five or six pieces of art with more value than the original Ecce Homo. It was not very valuable, it was not done by a famous painter, it wasn't even that old: it was just another religious work made by the village's painter at the time. None of his works sell at Sothebys.

2. Cecilia did not steal the painting, as the Ecce Homo is a fresco, meaning: it was painted on a column. The only way you can remove that painting is by complicated chemistry works or by ninja-kicking the column out and running away with a ton-heavy piece of stone. What really happened is she entered the church and worked on the painting, and the priest in charge never stopped her. And he knew she was working on it.

3. This is the Church we are talking about. The Church in Spain. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, yes? These are not a bunch of peace-loving philantropists, the Church is an organ of power over here. They're rich, they have political influence and they don't pay taxes. This a humble 80 year old woman asking for her cut to a big organization.

And finally...

4. The new painting is faaaar more valuable than the original. From an obscure third-rate Jesus painting to an internationally famous pop symbol. It's ironic, it's unintentional, and it's a good reflection of the internet age. It's a masterpiece of pop art! Ugly? It's shit ugly! But it's relevant and far more important than any academic religious work you can find in any regular town church.

1. If I made a painting today and it was known only for me and it would be worth $1.000, I still wouldn't like an old lady coming and destroying my piece of art. It may not be the Mona Lisa, but it should be respected

3. Well, the Church may be powerful, but I understand that each church needs to manage its money, and they need money to repair what the old lady did to the painting

4. It is famous because it's ridiculous. It should be repaired ASAP and left as a meme just digitally.

If you commission someone to fix something or make something that you own they don't get squat if it becomes profitable. They don't own it, the work was paid for. You were paid to do a job, if you want rights to the image you have to stipulate it in a contract. If someone fixed up a house and you got a picture in Better Homes and Gardens I'm pretty sure they get jack.

I disagree: Not only do they owe Cecilia some royalties, other churches and museums should hire her to work on other exhibits! I heard the Mona Lisa is looking a little gloomy these days...

She sounds like that bitch who tried claiming the sun a few years ago.

Kargathia:
Any condescension is unintentional. The designation "work" in this case also is nothing more than a neutral way to express that nobody is denying that her actions led to the change in the painting.

I would agree if you hadn't already used the term to draw a comparison to work done by commissioned artisans. The term can be neutral or it can be the basis for an argument, it can't be both. You could use words like "act" or "object" that don't have implications (which you then base an argument around).

Also, I'm not sure why people keep assuming that somehow I think she actually has a chance in court.

Maybe because you keep posting things that have no purpose but to imply that she does? If we're not talking about the courts then leave them out of it.

Maybe I should start exaggerating wildly.

Unintentional my ass lol. I'm saying the demand is nuts. Technically that is an exaggeration but are you really going to complain about that?

Hmmm, she DOES have a point. Her intention was to restore the piece, not to destroy it. In doing so she DID wind up creating something which has generated a decent amount of *ahem* appeal and also notoriety for both her and the church. The fact remains that the church is exploiting her "legend" for it's own gain, when she did try and help them out. To be fair I DO think they should be splitting the money here. Without her misguided attempts to restore the piece there would be nothing to see here, on the other hand it is their painting. It's a freak occurance, and both parties should be thanking god that good is coming from this and split the largess while it comes in.

I'll also be honest in saying that a church charging people to see a picture of Jesus under these circumstances just seems wrong. Especially given that it's stated "visits increased, but donations didn't" they should be happy by definition that people are interested enough to come to a place of faith, rather than trying to get money out of them.

I'd make a poor god, in a case like this I'd want to make an example about greed and faith that would be retold for generations.

Therumancer:
Hmmm, she DOES have a point. Her intention was to restore the piece, not to destroy it. In doing so she DID wind up creating something which has generated a decent amount of *ahem* appeal and also notoriety for both her and the church. The fact remains that the church is exploiting her "legend" for it's own gain, when she did try and help them out. To be fair I DO think they should be splitting the money here. Without her misguided attempts to restore the piece there would be nothing to see here, on the other hand it is their painting. It's a freak occurance, and both parties should be thanking god that good is coming from this and split the largess while it comes in.

I'll also be honest in saying that a church charging people to see a picture of Jesus under these circumstances just seems wrong. Especially given that it's stated "visits increased, but donations didn't" they should be happy by definition that people are interested enough to come to a place of faith, rather than trying to get money out of them.

I'd make a poor god, in a case like this I'd want to make an example about greed and faith that would be retold for generations.

Even though I think the demand is a laugh, and a scam, I actually agree with you. At least to a degree. I'm a bundle of contradictions hehe.

I am not a legal professional but I have observed a lot of property cases. Trust me, they're all like this. No one is ever in the right. This is a pretty tame example, often the consequence is real harm.

EDIT: After thinking about it more, I'm inclined to be more sympathetic to the church. They are not charging for access to a picture of Jesus. They are charging for access to a hilarious joke. They are are profiting from a joke, not from religious conviction. That doesn't seem so bad, really.

Soooo the church countersues for the defacing of a priceless artifact and wins. I think that they managed to get a little "save-our-roof!" money out of this fresco fiasco (haha) is the best outcome of events altogether lame.

Okay, I should note that if what is reported here is correct (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/9555526/Elderly-woman-who-botched-religious-fresco-demands-royalties.html) the woman in question would like profits from the fresco to go to muscular atrophy charities, which shines a slightly different light on things than just wanting a share of the "come gawk at the traffic accident I caused" royalties.

Still, my bottom-line response has to be: "Royalties? Lady, you should thank your lucky stars you aren't spending your remaining years in jail for vandalism."

she should just be happy she's not getting punished...

As an art student I can say if you restore a painting you don't get profits. The person(s) who own the copyright do. The church does. Silly woman thinking she can ignore the rules

Callate:
Okay, I should note that if what is reported here is correct (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/9555526/Elderly-woman-who-botched-religious-fresco-demands-royalties.html) the woman in question would like profits from the fresco to go to muscular atrophy charities, which shines a slightly different light on things than just wanting a share of the "come gawk at the traffic accident I caused" royalties.

Still, my bottom-line response has to be: "Royalties? Lady, you should thank your lucky stars you aren't spending your remaining years in jail for vandalism."

I'm kinda torn here, partly that she's seeing a chance to make a lil money for a charity that she's got an interest in, and partly that, despite it being a royal disaster, the 'renovation', it has in fact caused more interest in that church that a professional renovation would have, and the church has pulled in 2000 euros in a couple of weeks, that they'd not have seen without her 'work' on the painting.

I'm not saying she should get a big stash of cash, but I think 10% to her chosen charity wouldn't hurt.

DugMachine:
Never heard of royalties for destroying art before.

Sure you have, Nickleback, Will.i.am and Alexandra Burke get them all the time XD

Now I want to take a tour of the White House, take a shit inside it, rub it all over the walls like suntan lotion, and demand that I receive royalties for it.

Huh on one hand she's an idiot and I hope she fails but on the other she does have a point. The church isn't taking donations, they're actually charging a fee to see a work they have no claim to.

She won't be satisfied until she ruins the church next. Get this lady a brush and make her paint something from scratch to earn money.

This pretty much says it all:

karamazovnew:
This pretty much says it all:

What's even more facepalm worthy is "foolness" is not a word. The word the creator of this picture was looking for is "foolishness".

Up to this point, I felt a certain amount of pity for the old lady.

Right now, I feel she should pay for the proper restauration of monkey jesus.

Asking for a share of donations is a dick move, no matter who or what you are.

SenseOfTumour:

I'm not saying she should get a big stash of cash, but I think 10% to her chosen charity wouldn't hurt.

OK, I think that's proper and well up Solomon's alley.

I could easily agree to your proposition. Everything beyond that is lawyer's shenanigans.

The7Sins:
I said it in the original thread about her destroying the painting and I'll say it again. She needs to be thrown in jail for stealing then destroying that painting.
The fact she has the gall to demand money after the shit she pulled makes me wish nothing but extreme harm upon her.

Ignorant. If you don't know the story, don't talk.

I think this is more the work of greedy lawyers convincing this woman to do it so that they get a cut of it because I read that she was planning to donate her share to charity. Doesn't justify inadvertent vandalism but I don't think we should be so quick to insult her.

karamazovnew:
This pretty much says it all:

This says it much better:
image

Ronack:
Doesn't she need to pay them back for destroying a piece of art like that? And now she's demanding cash? Holy crack, wtf.

^Exactly this! How could she possibly think this is a good idea...

I want to stab this woman. I wanted to already, of course, but I thought she was already as low as she could go. Now not only is she an idiot, but she's a greedy, capitalistic idiot.

No. You don't get a cut of the royalties of people satirizing you. That's why George Lucas didn't see a dime from Spaceballs, and why Jon Stewart doesn't have to pay politicians a cut of the Daily Show's profits.

She made the painting famous and there's money made of it, so it's fair to demand something for it.

However the painting didn't belong to her so fuck that shit.

OT (Off Topic)
Lot's of people here deeming the little painting as a priceless piece of art...
Makes me wonder how many people actually give a toss about it hadn't it gotten such a spotlight lately.

Ignore the fact that if I were the church, I'd turn this around and get after her for property damage since she ballsed up a priceless piece of ancient art.

She is asking for a cut of the donations the painting brings into the church? What incredible greediness and douchebaggery! You can't ask for a cut of donations, that's not how those are supposed to work, I'm fairly sure donation implies some sort of non-profit incentive like making the place they donated to better.

Plus, people shouldn't be rewarded for stupidity. I hope the church's lawyers tear her a new asshole for such a staggering display of brazen stupidity.

I can see her point of view in this. Not agree with it, not in a million years, but hey.

She takes the painting away, "restores" it, (apologizes, which was why I sort of forgave her) and suddenly BAM, her work is raking in cash. Not hard for her to put two and two together and realize she might make some cash.

I do agree with most of these posts though. She may have returned the painting, but theft is theft, and should not be allowed to make money from this, if only as a lesson. Maybe if the church loans it to her again, to see what she can do with it...

And "Fat Sasquatch" was the funniest thing I read all day.

Perhaps she does have a right to see some of the entry fees. Then you charge her for destroying a priceless piece of art and call it even.

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

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

And yet,they are. Just look at Capcom. Hi-oh! But seriously lady,you....are an idiot. Why would you charge cash for something you destroyed in the first place? (sigh)It makes no sense.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

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