Destroying Art
mdginzo
maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the work up into 1000
pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming buyers could be found,
should he be allowed to do such a thing? How could he be stopped?
Eric Boyd
"mdginzo" <mdg...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:y0Gf8.96489$2v1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Art lovers with guns.
-E
Lars Eighner
<y0Gf8.96489$2v1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, the lovely and
talented mdginzo broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
This sort of thing is illegal in the EU (at least for recently
created works). It is something they call "moral rights" which
go beyond the sort of thing copyright covers in the US. (But
copyright is improving in the US and it is now actually very
difficult or impossible to completely alienated the rights in
anything forever.) Basically, you cannot do weird stuff with
other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
a lithograph to line your bird cage, you can't paint over the
artist's signature and try to pass off the painting as your
own, you can't destroy it, etc.
Yes, the Mona Lisa has not been created recently, but you
couldn't buy it anyway.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Hand me down my love beads, babe. The generals are at it again.
They see the light at the end of the tunnel. This time it's in Afghanistan.
Boron Elgar
>Yes, the Mona Lisa has not been created recently, but you
>couldn't buy it anyway.
One wonders what the price would be for the most famous painting in
the world.
Mona must be the "everything else" that MasterCard talks about..
I do think the $100 mil that the original poster mentioned could be
the opening bid...
Boron
John Dean
"Lars Eighner" <eig...@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrna7ut9g.g2...@dumpster.io.com...
> In our last episode,
> <y0Gf8.96489$2v1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, the lovely and
> talented mdginzo broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>
> > Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona
> > Lisa for maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the
> > work up into 1000 pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming
> > buyers could be found, should he be allowed to do such a thing?
> > How could he be stopped?
>
>
> This sort of thing is illegal in the EU (at least for recently
> created works). It is something they call "moral rights" which
> go beyond the sort of thing copyright covers in the US. (But
> copyright is improving in the US and it is now actually very
> difficult or impossible to completely alienated the rights in
> anything forever.) Basically, you cannot do weird stuff with
> other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
> a lithograph to line your bird cage, you can't paint over the
> artist's signature and try to pass off the painting as your
> own, you can't destroy it, etc.
>
Still OK in the USA - see Ms Cornwell's vandalism described at
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,615448,00.html
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
ra...@westnet.poe.com
"Should he"? Yes, unless the property was bought with some sort of rider
contract that required him to take good care of the item.
> How could he be stopped?
Mobs come to mind. A smidge of copper jacketed lead with a bit of kinetic
energy works well. However, the only legal means is to stun him with
impressively large amounts of money and buy the thing before he does it,
that or ther are legal ways of applying the Mob or Bullet solution: have
some local government seize it and declare it a national treasure or
whatever and give the guy his $100 million back: but that's really no
different from the Mob solution, just dressing it up nicely.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Lesmond
You know, I remember hearing about a supposed "artist" who had planned to do
this with (I think) a Mondrian. He claimed he wanted to make fine art
accessible to more people than could normally afford it. His plan was to cut
the Mondrian into one inch squares and sell them.
I have searched on this and cannot find it, though. Anyone else remember
this?
_
Unmitigated seriousness is always out of place in human affairs.
Al Yellon
> created works). It is something they call "moral rights" which
> go beyond the sort of thing copyright covers in the US. (But
> copyright is improving in the US and it is now actually very
> difficult or impossible to completely alienated the rights in
> anything forever.) Basically, you cannot do weird stuff with
> other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
> a lithograph to line your bird cage, you can't paint over the
> artist's signature and try to pass off the painting as your
> own, you can't destroy it, etc.
OK, not that I would ever do this, but:
1) What are the penalties for doing such things?
2) How would they be enforced?
--
"If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way"
-- John Mellencamp
The AFCA Kid
>Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona Lisa for
>maybe $100 million.
Sure, okay. I guess I read that's what it's been appraised at.
> What if they then decided to cut the work up into 1000
>pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming buyers could be found,
>should he be allowed to do such a thing?
No; it's actually illegal, and doubly so in France.
> How could he be stopped?
I think the specter of a skabillion dollars in legal fees and the general
impossibility of realizing any sort of actual profit from such a dreadful
scheme would rule out any possibility of this scenario coming to pass in a
civilized country.
Dutch "http://www.artcellarexchange.com/Moral.html" Courage
--
"I have been paid a lot for my work, but never everything." -Chris Adams
The AFCA Kid
Date: 3/1/02 10:54 AM Eastern writes:
>mdginzo <mdg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona Lisa for
>> maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the work up into 1000
>> pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming buyers could be found,
>> should he be allowed to do such a thing?
>
>"Should he"? Yes,
No, the correct answer is "no." Since, after all, he didn't really buy it.
>unless the property was bought with some sort of rider
>contract that required him to take good care of the item.
Well, or it was purchased in a country that's a signatory to the Berne
convention.
>
>> How could he be stopped?
>
>Mobs come to mind. A smidge of copper jacketed lead with a bit of kinetic
>energy works well. However, the only legal means is to stun him with
>impressively large amounts of money and buy the thing before he does it,
No, actually, no. The Artist, or in this case the government of France citing
the value of the Mona Lisa as a national treasure and artifact and icon of
western civilization, would have legal recourse to either prevent something
like that from taking place,. or recover damages
>that or ther are legal ways of applying the Mob or Bullet solution: have
>some local government seize it and declare it a national treasure or
>whatever and give the guy his $100 million back: but that's really no
>different from the Mob solution, just dressing it up nicely.
Legitimate, limited government is the opposite of a mob. Mobs don't tend to
recognize inalienable moral rights, but the Berne convention, upon which this
jurisprudence is based, does.
Dutch "Yes, Virginia, JF often knows what he's talking about" Courage
Binyamin Dissen
:>In our last episode,
:><y0Gf8.96489$2v1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, the lovely and
:>talented mdginzo broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
:>> Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona
:>> Lisa for maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the
:>> work up into 1000 pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming
:>> buyers could be found, should he be allowed to do such a thing?
:>> How could he be stopped?
:>This sort of thing is illegal in the EU (at least for recently
:>created works). It is something they call "moral rights" which
:>go beyond the sort of thing copyright covers in the US. (But
:>copyright is improving in the US and it is now actually very
:>difficult or impossible to completely alienated the rights in
:>anything forever.)
I fail to understand the connection between copyright law, which limits the
ability to copy & sell works, with destroying a purchased object.
:> Basically, you cannot do weird stuff with
:>other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
:>a lithograph to line your bird cage,
Why not?
Can you also create a "religious" art work which would have laws against the
ways it could be used?
:> you can't paint over the
:>artist's signature and try to pass off the painting as your
:>own,
That sounds like fraud.
:> you can't destroy it, etc.
Why not?
:>Yes, the Mona Lisa has not been created recently, but you
:>couldn't buy it anyway.
Why not?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Jim Shaffer, Jr.
>> Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona
>> Lisa for maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the
>> work up into 1000 pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming
>> buyers could be found, should he be allowed to do such a thing?
>> How could he be stopped?
>
>
>This sort of thing is illegal in the EU (at least for recently
>created works). It is something they call "moral rights" which
>go beyond the sort of thing copyright covers in the US.
Then why didn't I see any of them making an effort to take out the Taliban
before they blew up all those ancient Buddhist statues? After all, calling it a
"moral" issue implies to me that the claimant believes that secular law, based
on logic rather than belief, should be superceded(*), so the fact that the
Taliban don't belong to the EU shouldn't have stood in the way.
(*) At least that's what the monotheists have been getting away with in the US
whenever the subject of gay rights comes before the court.
Carl Fink
Dissen wrote:
> I fail to understand the connection between copyright law, which limits the
> ability to copy & sell works, with destroying a purchased object.
The Berne Convention, which governs copyright, also gives artists
certain other rights. (We in the USA have not agreed to the
non-copyright portions.)
>:> Basically, you cannot do weird stuff with
>:>other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
>:>a lithograph to line your bird cage,
>
> Why not?
Because the EU's law says so. Because even if you buy a work of art,
under EU law you don't completely control it.
>:>Yes, the Mona Lisa has not been created recently, but you
>:>couldn't buy it anyway.
>
> Why not?
Because France wouldn't sell, I assume.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
ratslapper
translate into unattainable? One would have to figure that any piece
deemed priceless would be gobbled up by a national gallery, and
wouldn't really be available to the general public. -Sorry for not
playing along.
However, I would think that once someone has purchased a piece it
becomes their property to do with it as they please. Unfortunately,
most of the big sales that are mentioned in the daily papers are made
by investors who will eventually turn them over for a profit to either
other investors, or gallery collections. Unique thing about art: Altho
it's commonly referred to as a 'commodity' it doesn't fluctuate in
value like a stock. The price never goes down.
Cheers
"mdginzo" <mdg...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<y0Gf8.96489$2v1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>...
Al Yellon
news:slrna7vtoq...@panix2.panix.com...
> >:> Basically, you cannot do weird stuff with
> >:>other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
> >:>a lithograph to line your bird cage,
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because the EU's law says so. Because even if you buy a work of art,
> under EU law you don't completely control it.
OK, let's say you buy a work of art in the EU and then take it to the USA.
Do you *then* completely control it?
osmium
You ask "why not" several times. The answer is that laws do not have to be
logical or make sense. One of the earlier responses in this thread is a
clear violation of the fifth ammendment. Which the Supreme Court has long
since given up on as having any particular meaning. Witness the
"historical site" laws or whatever they are called. These laws constitute
the taking of property without compensatin.
Dana Carpender
osmium wrote:
>
>
> You ask "why not" several times. The answer is that laws do not have to be
> logical or make sense. One of the earlier responses in this thread is a
> clear violation of the fifth ammendment. Which the Supreme Court has long
> since given up on as having any particular meaning. Witness the
> "historical site" laws or whatever they are called. These laws constitute
> the taking of property without compensatin.
Uh, osmium? The Mona Lisa does not reside in the United States. In
case you hadn't realized this, our Constitution only holds within our
borders. Hope this helps.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
John Hatpin
>Hey! I made it into a thread title!
>
>What? Oh, never mind...
Thread merge, bad Usenet practice, but, what the hell ...
LOL.
--
John Hatpin
Lars Eighner
and talented John Dean broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,615448,00.html
I'm feeling a bit thick this morning (had to take the beagle for her
annual exam and shots), but I don't understand what she hoped to find
that could not have been found without destroying the paintings.
Small samples of pigment or the fabric certainly could be obtained
without destroying the painting, and xray could reveal any hidden
image. Does anyone take this woman seriously? No one has bothered
to defend her from severe criticism on alt.true-crime and
rec.arts.mysteries
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
War on Terrorism: Treat Viewers like Mushrooms
"It seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in
Afghanistan." -Walter Isaacson, _CNN_
Dr H
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Scratchie wrote:
}Hey! I made it into a thread title!
}
}What? Oh, never mind...
}
}--Art
You were worried for a minute, though; admit it.
Dr H
Dr H
On 1 Mar 2002, ratslapper wrote:
}"Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art" -Doesn't 'priceless
}translate into unattainable? One would have to figure that any piece
}deemed priceless would be gobbled up by a national gallery, and
}wouldn't really be available to the general public. -Sorry for not
}playing along.
}
}However, I would think that once someone has purchased a piece it
}becomes their property to do with it as they please.
And in fact it is not uncommon for someone to purchase a work of
art and put it into a private collection, beyond reach of the
public for a generation, if not forever.
Dr H
Dr H
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Lars Eighner wrote:
}This sort of thing is illegal in the EU (at least for recently
}created works). It is something they call "moral rights" which
}go beyond the sort of thing copyright covers in the US. (But
}copyright is improving in the US and it is now actually very
}difficult or impossible to completely alienated the rights in
}anything forever.) Basically, you cannot do weird stuff with
}other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
}a lithograph to line your bird cage, you can't paint over the
}artist's signature and try to pass off the painting as your
}own, you can't destroy it, etc.
That seems rather unduly restrictive of the creative rights of
/other/ artists. Suppose one buys a painting with the intention
of lining a bird cage, and exhibiting the bird cage as a work of
sculpture?
I'm thinking of the piece, by George Brecht, IIRC, entitled
"Erased De Kooning Drawing" in which he purchased said pencil
drawing, meticulously erased every line, and then exhibited
the page together with the selection of erasers used to do
the deed.
Dr H
Perry Farmer
-> osmium wrote:
-> >
-> >
-> > You ask "why not" several times. The answer is that laws do not ha
-> > logical or make sense. One of the earlier responses in this thread
-> > clear violation of the fifth ammendment. Which the Supreme Court h
-> > since given up on as having any particular meaning. Witness the
-> > "historical site" laws or whatever they are called. These laws con
-> > the taking of property without compensatin.
-> Uh, osmium? The Mona Lisa does not reside in the United States. In
-> case you hadn't realized this, our Constitution only holds within our
-> borders. Hope this helps.
Actually in some cases, it exist outside our borders as well.
-> --
-> Dana W. Carpender
Perry
Carl Fink
> OK, let's say you buy a work of art in the EU and then take it to the USA.
> Do you *then* completely control it?
You'd need to ask a lawyer that. If destroying the artwork was a
crime in *both* countries, you could be extradited. I dunno about
this situation, but I would guess not.
The AFCA Kid
>
>On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:31:52 GMT Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>
>:>In our last episode,
>:><y0Gf8.96489$2v1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, the lovely and
>:>talented mdginzo broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>
>:>> Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona
>:>> Lisa for maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the
>:>> work up into 1000 pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming
>:>> buyers could be found, should he be allowed to do such a thing?
>:>> How could he be stopped?
>
>:>This sort of thing is illegal in the EU (at least for recently
>:>created works). It is something they call "moral rights" which
>:>go beyond the sort of thing copyright covers in the US. (But
>:>copyright is improving in the US and it is now actually very
>:>difficult or impossible to completely alienated the rights in
>:>anything forever.)
>
>I fail to understand the connection between copyright law, which limits the
>ability to copy & sell works, with destroying a purchased object.
Huh, that's funny, because you probably leave the "o" out of "God."
Anyway, I think on some level, the idea is with art, and especially Art, the
person who made it has some inalienable claim to it.
>
>:> Basically, you cannot do weird stuff with
>:>other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
>:>a lithograph to line your bird cage,
>
>Why not?
Cause it's not yours to that extent.
>
>Can you also create a "religious" art work which would have laws against the
>ways it could be used?
Um...I don't know what you think that means.
>
>:> you can't paint over the
>:>artist's signature and try to pass off the painting as your
>:>own,
>
>That sounds like fraud.
>
>:> you can't destroy it, etc.
>
>Why not?
It's not yours to destroy, just like its not yours to disseminate.
>
>:>Yes, the Mona Lisa has not been created recently, but you
>:>couldn't buy it anyway.
>
>Why not?
No one would sell it to you.
The AFCA Kid
>On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:31:52 GMT, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>> Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona
>>> Lisa for maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the
>>> work up into 1000 pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming
>>> buyers could be found, should he be allowed to do such a thing?
>>> How could he be stopped?
>>
>>
>>This sort of thing is illegal in the EU (at least for recently
>>created works). It is something they call "moral rights" which
>>go beyond the sort of thing copyright covers in the US.
>
>Then why didn't I see any of them making an effort to take out the Taliban
>before they blew up all those ancient Buddhist statues?
You'll notice you didn't see anyone really making a fuss about Rwanda, even
though I bet most people believe you have a moral right not to be hacked to
death with a sword.
> After all, calling
>it a
>"moral" issue implies to me that the claimant believes that secular law,
>based
>on logic rather than belief, should be superceded(*),
Huh?
> so the fact that the
>Taliban don't belong to the EU shouldn't have stood in the way.
Boy, are you confused.
>
>(*) At least that's what the monotheists have been getting away with in the
>US
>whenever the subject of gay rights comes before the court.
--
The AFCA Kid
>
>On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Lars Eighner wrote:
> I'm thinking of the piece, by George Brecht, IIRC,
Rauschenberg.
>entitled
> "Erased De Kooning Drawing" in which he purchased said pencil
> drawing, meticulously erased every line, and then exhibited
> the page together with the selection of erasers used to do
> the deed.
Yeah, huh. The thing about that kind of stuff is it's really only cute once.
The AFCA Kid
>
>>On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:15:36 -0500, mdginzo wrote:
>>
>>>Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona Lisa for
>>>maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the work up into 1000
>>>pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming buyers could be found,
>>>should he be allowed to do such a thing? How could he be stopped?
>>
>
>
>Well, I'd buy lunch for the wealthy individual who shelled-out big bux for a
>bunch of John Gacy's clown art, and then tossed it all into a bonfire.
Right, cause that'll bring all the little boys back to life.
Dana Carpender
The AFCA Kid wrote:
>
> radioGO-SPA...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> >
> >>On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:15:36 -0500, mdginzo wrote:
> >>
> >>>Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona Lisa for
> >>>maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the work up into 1000
> >>>pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming buyers could be found,
> >>>should he be allowed to do such a thing? How could he be stopped?
> >>
> >
> >
> >Well, I'd buy lunch for the wealthy individual who shelled-out big bux for a
> >bunch of John Gacy's clown art, and then tossed it all into a bonfire.
>
> Right, cause that'll bring all the little boys back to life.
Well, no, but it did rid the world of a lot of really crappy art.
M C Hamster
news:Pine.GSU.4.21.02030...@garcia.efn.org...
When I saw the thread title, I thought, hopefully, that it referred to Art
Bell.
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
The AFCA Kid
>
>The AFCA Kid wrote:
>>
>> radioGO-SPA...@yahoo.com writes:
>>
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:15:36 -0500, mdginzo wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona Lisa
>for
>> >>>maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the work up into
>1000
>> >>>pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming buyers could be found,
>> >>>should he be allowed to do such a thing? How could he be stopped?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, I'd buy lunch for the wealthy individual who shelled-out big bux for
>a
>> >bunch of John Gacy's clown art, and then tossed it all into a bonfire.
>>
>> Right, cause that'll bring all the little boys back to life.
>
>
>Well, no, but it did rid the world of a lot of really crappy art.
Well, except it wasn't really all that much, and I think there's a good case
to be made for Gacy as a naive artist, a sort of evil Howard Finster.
Who was the guy in Raw a few years ago? With "Revolt on the Child Slave
Planet?"
John Dean
> In our last episode, <a5o1jq$ihj$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, the lovely
> and talented John Dean broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>
> > "Lars Eighner" <eig...@io.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrna7ut9g.g2...@dumpster.io.com...
> >> In our last episode,
> >> <y0Gf8.96489$2v1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, the lovely and
> >> talented mdginzo broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> >>
> >> other people's works even if you own the work. You can't use
> >> a lithograph to line your bird cage, you can't paint over the
> >> artist's signature and try to pass off the painting as your
> >> own, you can't destroy it, etc.
> >>
>
> > Still OK in the USA - see Ms Cornwell's vandalism described at
>
> > http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,615448,00.html
>
> I'm feeling a bit thick this morning (had to take the beagle for her
> annual exam and shots), but I don't understand what she hoped to find
> that could not have been found without destroying the paintings.
> Small samples of pigment or the fabric certainly could be obtained
> without destroying the painting, and xray could reveal any hidden
> image.
Well, exactly. Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
vandalism.
> Does anyone take this woman seriously?
Apparently, and unfortunately, yes. I lost faith when I found out just how
much of her back story was invented - that the ''coroner'' was a computer
operator and had seen about two more autopsies than I had. She's toned down
the lies in that area but she's still vainglorious.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Asterbark
>From: John Hatpin ag...@brookview.kaDELETETHISBITroo.co.uk
--
"They had never seen a southern home
And they liked it, better than their UFO"
Aster
The AFCA Kid
Date: 3/2/02 12:48 PM Eastern writes:
>On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:30:58 -0800, Dr H wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of the piece, by George Brecht, IIRC, entitled
>> "Erased De Kooning Drawing" in which he purchased said pencil
>> drawing, meticulously erased every line, and then exhibited
>> the page together with the selection of erasers used to do
>> the deed.
>
>I judge him to be a talentless jerk
Who, Rauschenberg? Pshaw.
>who attempts to pass off
>vandalism/sensationalism as artistic ability. Next!
Well, that'll affect his bottom line, sure. What a stupid bitch Kettir is.
Asterbark
>
>ket...@checkmysig.com
>Date: 3/2/02 12:48 PM Eastern writes:
>
>>On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:30:58 -0800, Dr H wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking of the piece, by George Brecht, IIRC, entitled
>>> "Erased De Kooning Drawing" in which he purchased said pencil
>>> drawing, meticulously erased every line, and then exhibited
>>> the page together with the selection of erasers used to do
>>> the deed.
>>
>>I judge him to be a talentless jerk
>
> Who, Rauschenberg? Pshaw.
>
>>who attempts to pass off
>>vandalism/sensationalism as artistic ability. Next!
>
>Well, that'll affect his bottom line, sure. What a stupid bitch Kettir is.
>
Forever let us hold our banner high, high, high!
Aster "I, bitchketeer"
Bob Moissonnier
They do not constitute any Fifth Amendment violation under any but the
most ridiculous and unreasonable reading, which I know you embrace but
still. For one thing, I recall that there is little evidence that the
compensation clause was ever intended to apply to anything other than
real property. Moreover, by its express terms it only applies when
property is actually "taken" and even then only when taken for "public
use."
The lunatic reading you espouse (and I have seen that you carry this
approach over into other areas of law) would prohibit virtually all
legislation -- laws necessarily affect the value of property in many,
many instances (of course, these folks don't fret about their
windfalls when a law increases the value of their property). Without
question, it would make all drug prohibition laws unconstitutional
absent compensation provisions. Obviously, most environmental
protection would be out of the question.
I realize you probably like this prospect -- it's still ridiculous and
unreasonable, which is why far better minds than yours and mine have
completely rejected it.
Bob Moissonnier
> mdginzo <mdg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Let's say someone bought a priceless work of art such as the Mona Lisa for
> > maybe $100 million. What if they then decided to cut the work up into 1000
> > pieces and sell each one for $200,000. Assuming buyers could be found,
> > should he be allowed to do such a thing?
>
> contract that required him to take good care of the item.
Or unless the law at the time of purchase (or really, subsequent to
purchase, but that's another story) provided that he could not do
that. In said case this "right" was not one of the sticks in the
bundle he bought, plain and simple.
Paul L. Madarasz
perhaps among other things...:
>I'm feeling a bit thick this morning (had to take the beagle for her
>annual exam and shots)
The beagle? One of the more famous dogs in recent literary history,
and you call her "the beagle?" Lars, have you tried a cold compress
on your forehead and a half-hour on the couch?
--
Paul L. Madarasz
Tucson, Baja Arizona
"How 'bout cuttin' that rebop?
-- S. Kowalski
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dr H
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 ket...@checkmysig.com wrote:
}On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:30:58 -0800, Dr H wrote:
}
}> I'm thinking of the piece, by George Brecht, IIRC, entitled
}> "Erased De Kooning Drawing" in which he purchased said pencil
}> drawing, meticulously erased every line, and then exhibited
}> the page together with the selection of erasers used to do
}> the deed.
}
}I judge him to be a talentless jerk who attempts to pass off
}vandalism/sensationalism as artistic ability. Next!
De gustibus non est disputandum.
But then, the question wasn't really what you think of the person
who does such a thing, but whether it could be done or if it was
"allowed". Clearly it can be done, and it has been done.
Dr H
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Paul L Madarasz broadcast on
alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 00:30:15 GMT, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote,
> perhaps among other things...:
>>I'm feeling a bit thick this morning (had to take the beagle for her
>>annual exam and shots)
> The beagle? One of the more famous dogs in recent literary history,
> and you call her "the beagle?"
No, the famous dog is no more. She was three, four, and five in the
time treated by the book, eight when the book came out in 1993, and
departed this world of woe quietly in her sleep at the age of 13-1/2,
which is about average for a dog her size.
> Lars, have you tried a cold compress on your forehead and a
> half-hour on the couch?
I wish. I got the beagle from the Big House about two years ago when
she was already one. Unfortunately, she had spent too long in the
Big House and is very under socialized. She isn't one of your dainty
America pocket beagles, but is a stout, full-sized English sort of
beagle with an imperious attitude. She was in the Big House from an
early age, evidently because she has an overbite, and the puppy farms
have no use for the less-than-perfect. "Wilma" is the name she came
with.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek,
but a means by which we arrive at that goal.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
The AFCA Kid
Date: 3/3/02 11:11 AM Eastern writes:
>mutigho...@aol.comseven (The coolest boy in AFCA school) wrote:
>>
>>
>>ket...@checkmysig.com
>>Date: 3/2/02 12:48 PM Eastern writes:
>>
>>>On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:30:58 -0800, Dr H wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of the piece, by George Brecht, IIRC, entitled
>>>> "Erased De Kooning Drawing" in which he purchased said pencil
>>>> drawing, meticulously erased every line, and then exhibited
>>>> the page together with the selection of erasers used to do
>>>> the deed.
>>>
>>>I judge him to be a talentless jerk
>>
>> Who, Rauschenberg? Pshaw.
>>
>>>who attempts to pass off
>>>vandalism/sensationalism as artistic ability. Next!
>>
>>Well, that'll affect his bottom line, sure. What a stupid bitch Kettir is.
>>
>
>The condemnation of fools is a recommendation to the wise.
Yeah, I was thinking something like that when I read "I judge him to be a
talentless jerk"
Dutch "Oh, sure, he's no Mike Mignola <snicker>" Courage
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>> How could he be stopped?
>>
>>energy works well. However, the only legal means is to stun him with
>>impressively large amounts of money and buy the thing before he does it,
> No, actually, no. The Artist, or in this case the government of France citing
> the value of the Mona Lisa as a national treasure and artifact and icon of
> western civilization, would have legal recourse to either prevent something
> like that from taking place,. or recover damages
Right. Mobs.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
The AFCA Kid
Date: 3/4/02 9:48 AM Eastern writes:
>The AFCA Kid <mutigho...@aol.comseven> wrote:
>> ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>>> How could he be stopped?
>>>
>>>Mobs come to mind. A smidge of copper jacketed lead with a bit of kinetic
>>>energy works well. However, the only legal means is to stun him with
>>>impressively large amounts of money and buy the thing before he does it,
>
>> No, actually, no. The Artist, or in this case the government of France
>citing
>> the value of the Mona Lisa as a national treasure and artifact and icon of
>> western civilization, would have legal recourse to either prevent something
>> like that from taking place,. or recover damages
>
>Right. Mobs.
Actually, the opposite of a mob, since all the government is doing is
recognizing property rights, and protecting them, and assume the artist doesn't
want to part with his moral right to a work of art unless he says he does.
Dr H
On 2 Mar 2002, The AFCA Kid wrote:
} Dr H hiaw...@efn.org
}Date: 3/1/02 7:30 PM Eastern writes:
}>
}>On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Lars Eighner wrote:
}
}> I'm thinking of the piece, by George Brecht, IIRC,
}
} Rauschenberg.
Yeah, thanks. It's been a while.
}>entitled
}> "Erased De Kooning Drawing" in which he purchased said pencil
}> drawing, meticulously erased every line, and then exhibited
}> the page together with the selection of erasers used to do
}> the deed.
}
} Yeah, huh. The thing about that kind of stuff is it's really only cute once.
If "cuteness" is your main criterion, you're missing out on a lot of art.
BTW, you may want to check out "White on White"
Dr H
Estron
> Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
> vandalism.
I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, John Dean wrote:
>> Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
>> vandalism.
> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting. The government has
siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece goes.
The AFCA Kid
>Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, John Dean wrote:
>
>> Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
>> vandalism.
>
>I'm confused.
Boy, are you ever.
> Didn't she buy the painting first?
Well, she bought some of it, but not all of it.
> Vandalism is what
>they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
Right, and in Europe, and America to a lesser degree, that's not automatically
part of what you buy when you buy a work of art, just as a Titanic videotape
is yours to buy and sell, but you've no right to commercially exploit the
videotape recorded thereon.
Slicing the salami a little thin? maybe. But it's nice to see the law benefit
people who do the work for a change.
Lars Eighner
and talented ra...@westnet.poe.com broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, John Dean wrote:
>>> Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
>>> vandalism.
>> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
>> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
> Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting. The government has
> siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece goes.
Of course not. The residual rights belong to the creator of the
work. Watch out for the black helicopters and adjust your tinfoil
hat.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
War on Terrorism: Camp Follower
"I am ... a total sucker for the guys ... with all the ribbons on and stuff,
and they say it's true and I'm ready to believe it. -Cokie Roberts,_ABC_
The AFCA Kid
Date: 3/4/02 3:52 PM Eastern writes:
>Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, John Dean wrote:
>
>>> Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
>>> vandalism.
>
>> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
>> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
>
>Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting.
Well, you probably can, it just costs more.
> The government has
>siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece goes.
Ehr, no. No, sorry. And I hate to repeat myself, but again, most emphatically,
no. The government simply recognizes, and defends, the moral rights of the
artist to what he creates.
Kevin O'Neill
Kid) wrote:
Are you sure? For example, Leo is dead. Does he still have rights to
the Mona Lisa? I would have thought the govt was protecting the right
of society to continue to have its art treasures, not the rights of
the artist.
Kevin
Bob Ward
Kid) wrote:
>-:ra...@westnet.poe.com
>-:Date: 3/4/02 3:52 PM Eastern writes:
>-:
>-:>Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>-:>> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, John Dean wrote:
>-:>
>-:>>> Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
>-:>>> vandalism.
>-:>
>-:>> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
>-:>> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
>-:>
>-:>Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting.
>-:
>-: Well, you probably can, it just costs more.
>-:
>-:> The government has
>-:>siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece goes.
>-:
>-: Ehr, no. No, sorry. And I hate to repeat myself, but again, most emphatically,
>-:no. The government simply recognizes, and defends, the moral rights of the
>-:artist to what he creates.
What government is that? Where can this recognition be found?
--
This space left intentionally blank
The AFCA Kid
Berne convention signatories.
> Where can this recognition be found?
In the relevant laws. Duh.
kay w
>Are you sure? For example, Leo is dead. Does he still have rights to
>the Mona Lisa? I would have thought the govt was protecting the right
>of society to continue to have its art treasures, not the rights of
>the artist.
Well, he has the right to be recognized as the creator, doesn't he? (Ianal,
I'm asking here.) Just because he's dead, we don't call it Chirac's Mona Lisa,
or somesuch.
--
kay w
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose, evidence to the contrary not
withstanding.
Bob Ward
Kid) wrote:
>-:Bob Ward bob....@verizon.net writes:
>-:
>-:>
>-:>On 05 Mar 2002 04:28:28 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>-:>Kid) wrote:
>-:>
>-:>>-:ra...@westnet.poe.com
>-:>>-:Date: 3/4/02 3:52 PM Eastern writes:
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:>Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>-:>>-:>> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, John Dean wrote:
>-:>>-:>
>-:>>-:>>> Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
>-:>>-:>>> vandalism.
>-:>>-:>
>-:>>-:>> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
>-:>>-:>> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
>-:>>-:>
>-:>>-:>Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting.
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-: Well, you probably can, it just costs more.
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:> The government has
>-:>>-:>siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece goes.
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-: Ehr, no. No, sorry. And I hate to repeat myself, but again, most
>-:>emphatically,
>-:>>-:no. The government simply recognizes, and defends, the moral rights of the
>-:>>-:artist to what he creates.
>-:>
>-:>
>-:>What government is that?
>-:
>-: Berne convention signatories.
>-:
>-:> Where can this recognition be found?
>-:
>-:In the relevant laws. Duh.
Now THAT's a specific response... "Somewhere in the Library of
Congress".
Bob Ward
Kid) wrote:
>-:>>-:no. The government simply recognizes, and defends, the moral rights of the
>-:>>-:artist to what he creates.
>-:>
>-:>
>-:>What government is that?
>-:
>-: Berne convention signatories.
>-:
>-:> Where can this recognition be found?
>-:
>-:In the relevant laws. Duh.
I've looked up the Berne treaty, and one part that looks as though it
might apply is the following:
Article 14
[“Droit de suite” in Works of Art and Manuscripts:
1. Right to an interest in resales; 2. Applicable law; 3. Procedure]
(1)The author, or after his death the persons or institutions
authorized by national legislation, shall, with respect to original
works of art and original manuscripts of writers and composers, enjoy
the inalienable right to an interest in any sale of the work
subsequent to the first transfer by the author of the work.
(2)The protection provided by the preceding paragraph may be claimed
in a country of the Union only if legislation in the country to which
the author belongs so permits, and to the extent permitted by the
country where this protection is claimed.
(3)The procedure for collection and the amounts shall be matters for
determination by national legislation.
>>>>>>.
What (if any) national legislation has been enacted in the US to
provide for compensation to the artist upon subsequent resale of an
original work of art?
kay w
> (1)The author, or after his death the persons or institutions
>authorized by national legislation, shall, with respect to original
>works of art and original manuscripts of writers and composers, enjoy
>the inalienable right to an interest in any sale of the work
>subsequent to the first transfer by the author of the work.
When it says " *interest* in any sale" does it specifically mean a financial
interest, or just a right to get involved in the sale, or what?
The AFCA Kid
>On 05 Mar 2002 04:28:28 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>Kid) wrote:
>
>>ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>Date: 3/4/02 3:52 PM Eastern writes:
>>
>>>Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>>>> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, John Dean wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Vandalism is bad, vandalism for no good reason is, er, still
>>>>> vandalism.
>>>
>>>> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
>>>> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
>>>
>>>Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting.
>>
>> Well, you probably can, it just costs more.
>>
>>> The government has
>>>siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece goes.
>>
>> Ehr, no. No, sorry. And I hate to repeat myself, but again, most
>emphatically,
>>no. The government simply recognizes, and defends, the moral rights of the
>>artist to what he creates.
>
>Are you sure?
Well, in so far as the moral rights of artists, yeah. For something more like
national treasure, I dunno.
> For example, Leo is dead.
Sure, okay
> Does he still have rights to
>the Mona Lisa? I would have thought the govt was protecting the right
>of society to continue to have its art treasures, not the rights of
>the artist.
There's a difference jurisprudence depending on whether the artist, or some
heir or assignee, is still alive.
The AFCA Kid
>>-:>What government is that?
>>-:
>>-: Berne convention signatories.
>>-:
>>-:> Where can this recognition be found?
>>-:
>>-:In the relevant laws. Duh.
"Under U.S. Federal moral rights legislation, originally entitled the Visual
Artist's Rights Act of 1990, protection extends to certain single, original
works of art such as paintings, prints, sculptures, drawings, and specific
kinds of photographs. Protection is also available for some limited editions of
200 or fewer multiples. The artist has certain limited rights to claim and
disclaim credit for works of art and to prevent and remedy destruction,
modification, distortion, and mutilation of various works. The Appendix
contains key sections of the Visual Artist's Rights Act of 1990. The U.S.
legislation is primarily embodied at Title 17, United States Code, Sections 101
(definition of "work of visual art"), 106A, and 113(d), shown in the Appendix.
The Federal legislation generally preempts much of the various State moral
rights statutes, particularly in relation to all those works of art and rights
recognized under the Federal statutes. But State statutes still have a role to
play in relation to works and rights not covered under the Federal statute.
Only an individual analysis of each situation will determine whether the
Federal statute controls or whether State law may apply."
>http://www.artcellarexchange.com/Moral.html
>Now THAT's a specific response...
Hey, you can type "Google" "moral right" and "art" as well as I can.
Mike Muth
On 5-Mar-2002, K_S_O...@yahoo.com (Kevin O'Neill) wrote:
> On 05 Mar 2002 04:28:28 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
> Kid) wrote:
> >ra...@westnet.poe.com
> >Date: 3/4/02 3:52 PM Eastern writes:
> >>Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
> >>> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
> >>> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
> >>Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting.
> > Well, you probably can, it just costs more.
> >> The government has
> >>siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece goes.
No. Ownership resides with the person who has purchased the painting.
However, ownership does not confer the same rights in the EU as in the US.
> > Ehr, no. No, sorry. And I hate to repeat myself, but again, most
> > emphatically, no. The government simply recognizes, and defends,
> > the moral rights of the artist to what he creates.
Not in the US. In the US, one can assign all rights to a work to another
person. This would allow the new owner of those rights to do as they will
with the work. In the EU, this is not the case. See below.
> Are you sure? For example, Leo is dead. Does he still have rights to
> the Mona Lisa? I would have thought the govt was protecting the right
> of society to continue to have its art treasures, not the rights of
> the artist.
A case in point:
The family of the late John Huston sued in France in order to prevent theatres
from showing colorized versions of his films. The court ruled that altering a
person's work without their permission is an affront to that person's honor
and under current law was prohibited. The films were not shown in France. In
fact, I think that Turner decided that he likely would lose throughout the
rest of the EU and didn't even try in the EU countries. In the US, OTOH,
intellectual property is treated in some ways as common property. The owner
of the copyright has absolute rights to the work and may alter it in any
manner desired.
So, altering the Mona Lisa with Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is
forbidden by law - in many countries, but not in the USA.
Mike
The AFCA Kid
>The family of the late John Huston sued in France in order to prevent
>theatres
>from showing colorized versions of his films. The court ruled that altering
>a
>person's work without their permission is an affront to that person's honor
>and under current law was prohibited. The films were not shown in France.
>In
>fact, I think that Turner decided that he likely would lose throughout the
>rest of the EU and didn't even try in the EU countries. In the US, OTOH,
>intellectual property is treated in some ways as common property. The owner
>of the copyright has absolute rights to the work and may alter it in any
>manner desired.
Moral rights apply in a somewhat attenuated way in the US, as well, and even
less so to something like a movie.
>
>So, altering the Mona Lisa with Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is
>forbidden by law - in many countries, but not in the USA.
See elsewhere in the thread.
Mike Muth
On 5-Mar-2002, scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:
> Previously, BobW quoted, in part:
> > (1)The author, or after his death the persons or institutions
> >authorized by national legislation, shall, with respect to original
> >works of art and original manuscripts of writers and composers, enjoy
> >the inalienable right to an interest in any sale of the work
> >subsequent to the first transfer by the author of the work.
> When it says " *interest* in any sale" does it specifically mean a
> financial interest, or just a right to get involved in the sale, or what?
I think that would vary according to how a signatory had instantiated this
provision into their national laws.
Mike
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On 5-Mar-2002, K_S_O...@yahoo.com (Kevin O'Neill) wrote:
>> On 05 Mar 2002 04:28:28 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>> >ra...@westnet.poe.com
>> >Date: 3/4/02 3:52 PM Eastern writes:
>> >>Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>> >>> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
>> >>> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
>> >>Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting.
>> > Well, you probably can, it just costs more.
>> >> The government has
>> >>siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece goes.
> No. Ownership resides with the person who has purchased the painting.
> However, ownership does not confer the same rights in the EU as in the US.
Umm, yes, that's what I said. Thanks.
>> > Ehr, no. No, sorry. And I hate to repeat myself, but again, most
>> > emphatically, no. The government simply recognizes, and defends,
>> > the moral rights of the artist to what he creates.
> Not in the US. In the US, one can assign all rights to a work to another
> person. This would allow the new owner of those rights to do as they will
> with the work. In the EU, this is not the case. See below.
So someone in the US could buy and chop up the Mona Lisa?
>> Are you sure? For example, Leo is dead. Does he still have rights to
>> the Mona Lisa? I would have thought the govt was protecting the right
>> of society to continue to have its art treasures, not the rights of
>> the artist.
> A case in point:
> The family of the late John Huston sued in France in order to prevent theatres
> from showing colorized versions of his films. The court ruled that altering a
> person's work without their permission is an affront to that person's honor
> and under current law was prohibited. The films were not shown in France. In
> fact, I think that Turner decided that he likely would lose throughout the
> rest of the EU and didn't even try in the EU countries. In the US, OTOH,
> intellectual property is treated in some ways as common property. The owner
> of the copyright has absolute rights to the work and may alter it in any
> manner desired.
> So, altering the Mona Lisa with Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is
> forbidden by law - in many countries, but not in the USA.
Cool. Horay for the USA!
Estron
> Well, he has the right to be recognized as the creator, doesn't he?
> (Ianal, I'm asking here.) Just because he's dead, we don't call it
> Chirac's Mona Lisa, or somesuch.
Yeah, but that has little to do with what anyone who supposedly becomes
the owner of the piece wants to do with it. The hypothetical weirdo who
was mentioned at the beginning of the thread could well say, "This is
Leonardo da Vinci's one and only 'Mona Lisa' I'm destroying here!"
It looks to me as if enough people in the world to form an international
compact were convinced that some works of art are treasures of the human
race and must be protected from being owned by people who just might
think that being the owner of something meant you got to do --horrors! -
-what you wanted with it.
In my opinion, Americans' relative affluence and ability to own things
induces us to think owning things is quite important, more so than do
people in the world who aren't able to own as much as easily.
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
"And I'm proud to be an American,
Where my things are owned by me . . ."
Estron
> So, altering the Mona Lisa with Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is
> forbidden by law - in many countries, but not in the USA.
This doesn't make much sense, Mike, unless you meant to write "without"
instead of "with."
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Mike Muth
> > A case in point:
Oh. I can't believe I used "In fact" and "I think" together in one sentence.
I've got to go lighter on the meds.
> > likely would lose throughout the rest of the EU and didn't even try in
> > the EU countries. In the US, OTOH, intellectual property is treated in
> > some ways as common property. The owner of the copyright has
> > absolute rights to the work and may alter it in any manner desired.
> > So, altering the Mona Lisa with Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is
> > forbidden by law - in many countries, but not in the USA.
Oops. that should be "without" instead of "with."
> Cool. Horay for the USA!
I don't know. I think some things achieve a status such that they become
national treasures. In such cases, it I think it is reprehensible to destroy
the work (think Taliban and the destruction of statues in Afghanistan).
Mike
Mike Muth
Oops. That lats paragraph should say, "So, altering the Mona Lisa without
Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is forbidden by law - in many
countries, but not in the USA."
What can I say. Too little sleep, influenza and antihistamines.
Mike
The AFCA Kid
>It looks to me as if enough people in the world to form an international
>compact
Well, an international agreement regarding intellectual property
>were convinced that some works of art are treasures of the human
>race and must be protected from being owned by people who just might
>think that being the owner of something meant you got to do --horrors! -
>-what you wanted with it.
Well, or, and here's the real matter, that the creation of art, and the
ownership of art, in a way that didn't really apply to shoes or cake or
vertical drill presses, involved many levels of ownership, and that such rights
were not transfered unless specifically negotiated. It's also apparently
retroactive; since Modigliani didn't grant you the right to saw up his
painting, you didn't have it.
Hence Bob's "bundle of sticks" analogy.
Dutch "I thought you were a lawyer and understood property rights?" Courage
>
>In my opinion, Americans' relative affluence and ability to own things
>induces us to think owning things is quite important, more so than do
>people in the world who aren't able to own as much as easily.
>
>--
>All opinions expressed herein are only that.
>Pax vobiscum.
>est...@tfs.net
>"And I'm proud to be an American,
>Where my things are owned by me . . ."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
The AFCA Kid
Date: 3/5/02 9:43 AM Eastern writes:
>
>Mike Muth <wuf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On 5-Mar-2002, K_S_O...@yahoo.com (Kevin O'Neill) wrote:
>>> On 05 Mar 2002 04:28:28 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>>> Kidney) wrote:
>>> >ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>> >Date: 3/4/02 3:52 PM Eastern writes:
>>> >>Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>
>>> >>> I'm confused. Didn't she buy the painting first? Vandalism is what
>>> >>> they call it when you destroy someone else's property.
>
>>> >>Because apparently you cannot really buy the painting.
>
>>> > Well, you probably can, it just costs more.
>
>>> >> The government has
>>> >>siezed actuall ownership, at least insofar as vandalising the piece
>goes.
>
>> No. Ownership resides with the person who has purchased the painting.
>> However, ownership does not confer the same rights in the EU as in the US.
>
>Umm, yes, that's what I said.
I think you said something a little different, John. Also, what Kevin asserts
isn't entirely true; US artists do have similar moral rights as their EU
counterparts, for at least certain types of art.
>>> > Ehr, no. No, sorry. And I hate to repeat myself, but again, most
>>> > emphatically, no. The government simply recognizes, and defends,
>>> > the moral rights of the artist to what he creates.
>
>> Not in the US. In the US, one can assign all rights to a work to another
>> person.
I think you can in the EU, but you have to assign them; they are not assumed.
>This would allow the new owner of those rights to do as they will
>> with the work. In the EU, this is not the case. See below.
>
>So someone in the US could buy and chop up the Mona Lisa?
Probably not.
>
>>> Are you sure? For example, Leo is dead. Does he still have rights to
>>> the Mona Lisa? I would have thought the govt was protecting the right
>>> of society to continue to have its art treasures, not the rights of
>>> the artist.
>
>> A case in point:
>
>> The family of the late John Huston sued in France in order to prevent
>theatres
>> from showing colorized versions of his films. The court ruled that
>altering a
>> person's work without their permission is an affront to that person's honor
>> and under current law was prohibited. The films were not shown in France.
>In
>> fact, I think that Turner decided that he likely would lose throughout the
>> rest of the EU and didn't even try in the EU countries. In the US, OTOH,
>> intellectual property is treated in some ways as common property. The
>owner
>> of the copyright has absolute rights to the work and may alter it in any
>> manner desired.
>
>> So, altering the Mona Lisa with Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is
>> forbidden by law - in many countries, but not in the USA.
>
>Cool.
Wrong
> Horay for the USA!
Horay?
The AFCA Kid
>Oops. That lats paragraph should say, "So, altering the Mona Lisa without
>Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is forbidden by law - in many
>countries, but not in the USA."
Well, except it's not true.
Dutch "NTHRT,A' Courage
GrapeApe
>is
>>> forbidden by law - in many countries, but not in the USA.
>>
>>Cool.
>
> Wrong
>
>> Horay for the USA!
>
>Horay?
A stretch limo based on the Corvette Stingray. Carries mo bitchas.
Estron
> Well, or, and here's the real matter, that the creation of art, and the
> ownership of art, in a way that didn't really apply to shoes or cake or
> vertical drill presses, involved many levels of ownership, and that such
> rights were not transfered unless specifically negotiated. It's also
> apparently retroactive; since Modigliani didn't grant you the right to
> saw up his painting, you didn't have it.
Yes, I got the "bundle of sticks" analogy. Not all property rights are
transferred -- in these cases. Might as well throw in the old phrase,
"Everything's negotiable."
However, with shoes, cake and drill presses, it's automatic that the
right to change, deface or destroy is one of the rights granted with
transfer of ownership. But not, apparently, with art.
Which suggests, but of course does not beg, the question of where the
edges of such retained rights are. Given sufficient moolah, could I
purchase a priceless sculpture and then display it outdoors, where it
would eventually suffer from exposure to the elements, not to mention
the messy birds? Would it make a difference if the sculpture were
unpainted stone or painted wood? Do I have fewer rights when purchasing
a sculpture if it was by Michelangelo, as opposed to Kansas City Art
Statuary?
Conversely, suppose I purchased a priceless piece of art and, instead of
displaying its beauty to the world as the artist intended, locked it
inside a vault with the intention of hiding it away from the rest of the
world, a la that Cyndi Lauper song? Would I have the right to do that?
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Boron Elgar
>However, with shoes, cake and drill presses, it's automatic that the
>right to change, deface or destroy is one of the rights granted with
>transfer of ownership. But not, apparently, with art.
>
Pardon me if this has come up earlier in the thread & I missed it, but
many homes & buildings have landmark or historical designation and the
sale & deed have restrictions on what can be done with the property. I
know the regs vary by govt level & locale & can be minimal or
extreme.
Boron
Dr H
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Estron wrote:
}Conversely, suppose I purchased a priceless piece of art and, instead of
}displaying its beauty to the world as the artist intended, locked it
}inside a vault with the intention of hiding it away from the rest of the
}world, a la that Cyndi Lauper song? Would I have the right to do that?
It gets done all the time. Next time you visit a large art museum
take note of how many pieces are "on loan from the collection of _____."
These are the nice collectors, who allow their pieces to be displayed;
there are plenty of others who don't.
Dr H
Dr H
On 5 Mar 2002, The AFCA Kid wrote:
}>
}>So someone in the US could buy and chop up the Mona Lisa?
}
} Probably not.
You probably couldn't buy it. But if you *could* buy it, it is not
clear that anyone in the US could /legally/ stop you from chopping it up.
At least for "buy" it the sense in which I believe that it is usually
understood to apply to most commodities. If you are talking about
"buying" in the sense that one would acquire certain rights to the
purchased object but not others, well that isn't what is generally
assumed when you "buy" something. It would be more like a conditional
lease, or some sort of trusteeship with specific rights and obligations.
Dr H
Kevin O'Neill
Kid) wrote:
>>> No. Ownership resides with the person who has purchased the painting.
>>> However, ownership does not confer the same rights in the EU as in the US.
>>
>>Umm, yes, that's what I said.
>
> I think you said something a little different, John. Also, what Kevin asserts
>isn't entirely true; US artists do have similar moral rights as their EU
>counterparts, for at least certain types of art.
FTR, all I contributed was a question regarding whose rights are being
protected here, the artists or the society's.
I still think I'm right, in a way. Consider: I have art, in York
(Old York, in the UK). You buy art, in York (still old York). You
live in York (New York, that is. In the US). You want to go to your
York, and take the art there with you, from my York. But in your
York, you could cut the art up and make new art if you wanted. In my
York, you can't, it has to stay old art. Can you take the art? Can I
sell you the art?
I think it depends on the art. If it's one of the Great Arts of York,
a thousand year old stained glass window showing the local seawall for
example, then I think they would not allow me to sell it to you
without a kind of rider, like the ones attached to murderers, possibly
named Art, extradited from Paris, France to Paris, Texas, to wit: You
can have Art, and you can keep Art locked up, but you can't fry Art.
Or cut art up, in the case of the art as opposed to Art. OTOH, if the
art is one the Minor Arts of York, a paint by numbers rendition of the
local seawall done by a color-challenged six year old for example, you
could take it with no questions asked.
And who decides what's worth protecting? Society, as a whole, by
making a fuss about cutting up something, or by not making a fuss
about cutting up something else. So it's not really the artist's
rights that are being protected, is it? It's society's.
Kevin
The AFCA Kid
>On 5 Mar 2002, The AFCA Kid wrote:
>
>}ra...@westnet.poe.com
>}>
>}>So someone in the US could buy and chop up the Mona Lisa?
>}
>} Probably not.
>
> You probably couldn't buy it.
Sure
> But if you *could* buy it, it is not
> clear that anyone in the US could /legally/ stop you from chopping it up.
There are laws in the US, at both a state and federal level, as well as by
international agreement, which prohibit and provide means by which an artist
can prevent or remedy the destruction, distortion, mutiliation or alteration of
his or her work. Da Vinci being dead complicates matters somewhat, sure, but
there are provisions for perpetual application, and I am sure someone would
figure out how they apply to the mona lisa, for heaven's sake. In any case, the
general rule, which is more or less what the OP was getting at, is the general
rule.
>
> At least for "buy" it the sense in which I believe that it is usually
> understood to apply to most commodities. If you are talking about
> "buying" in the sense that one would acquire certain rights to the
> purchased object but not others, well that isn't what is generally
> assumed when you "buy" something.
It is what happens, however, when you are talking about art. Please do not
talk when you do not know, and listen to those who do, as now.
The AFCA Kid
>On 05 Mar 2002 18:20:04 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>Kid) wrote:
>
>>>> No. Ownership resides with the person who has purchased the painting.
>>>> However, ownership does not confer the same rights in the EU as in the
>US.
>>>
>>>Umm, yes, that's what I said.
>>
>> I think you said something a little different, John. Also, what Kevin
>asserts
>>isn't entirely true; US artists do have similar moral rights as their EU
>>counterparts, for at least certain types of art.
>
>FTR, all I contributed was a question regarding whose rights are being
>protected here, the artists or the society's.
Probably both. If the rights of artists are protected, this will encourage the
production of new works of art, which will benefit society.
>I still think I'm right, in a way.
Sure, as long as that way doesn't consider, oh, say, the actual text of
relevant US law, which assigns moral rights to artists, or more properly
recognizes the moral rights of artists
> Consider: I have art, in York
>(Old York, in the UK). You buy art, in York (still old York). You
>live in York (New York, that is. In the US). You want to go to your
>York, and take the art there with you, from my York. But in your
>York, you could cut the art up and make new art if you wanted.
No, Kevin, as has been cited, you can't, unless the artist has been dead for
some time, and maybe not even then.
The AFCA Kid
>Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, The AFCA Kid wrote:
>
>> Well, or, and here's the real matter, that the creation of art, and the
>> ownership of art, in a way that didn't really apply to shoes or cake or
>> vertical drill presses, involved many levels of ownership, and that such
>> rights were not transfered unless specifically negotiated. It's also
>> apparently retroactive; since Modigliani didn't grant you the right to
>> saw up his painting, you didn't have it.
>
>Yes, I got the "bundle of sticks" analogy.
Well, then what's your beef, jerky?
> Not all property rights are
>transferred -- in these cases.
I believe the property rights are transferable, in the US and the EU, and such
other decent places to live; it's just that they aren't considered transfered
unless named.
> Might as well throw in the old phrase,
>"Everything's negotiable."
>
>However, with shoes, cake and drill presses, it's automatic that the
>right to change, deface or destroy is one of the rights granted with
>transfer of ownership. But not, apparently, with art.
Yes, and? The right to commercially exploit, and all associated rights, is not
automatically transferred in the simplest of sales of art or similar
intellectual property.
>
>Which suggests, but of course does not beg,
I remain unconvinced, due to the lack of convincing cites, that it does beg
after all
>the question of where the
>edges of such retained rights are. Given sufficient moolah, could I
>purchase a priceless sculpture and then display it outdoors, where it
>would eventually suffer from exposure to the elements, not to mention
>the messy birds?
Depends. Did you purchase permission for that from the guy who made it?
> Would it make a difference if the sculpture were
>unpainted stone or painted wood? Do I have fewer rights when purchasing
>a sculpture if it was by Michelangelo, as opposed to Kansas City Art
>Statuary?
I dunno. Michelangelo is dead, so some agency other than him would have to
assert his rights, and I am not sure what the KCAS is. If it's a sweatshop that
makes garden statues, maybe, especially if they aren't art as legally defined
but rather some mass produced item. You might also have an angle, assuming
again the KCAS is a commercial statue factory, of an implicit transfer of moral
rights from their advertizing or the nature of that sort of work.
>Conversely, suppose I purchased a priceless piece of art
Yeah, okay. I must admit, I have only a slightly harder time imagining you
creating a priceless piece of art.
> and, instead of
>displaying its beauty to the world as the artist intended, locked it
>inside a vault with the intention of hiding it away from the rest of the
>world, a la that Cyndi Lauper song? Would I have the right to do that?
Huh, I dunno. Maybe, you're not really damaging it in any way. On the other
hand, I think this character:
"8. A collector who thought that any building's reflection in water, as
depicted in a painting, should be the same size as the building, repainted a
building's reflection to make it the same size as the building."
Should really be required to announce things like that at the time of sale, as
i doubt too many artists would be willing to charge this knucklehead their
regular price, and any sale proceeding from an assumption he would, you know,
not fuck things up, was clearly an act of fraud on his part. Oh, huh, I see an
example here:
http://www.artcellarexchange.com/Moral.html
so, maybe not.
Dutch "it also occurs to me the bulk of your work as a songwriter is probably
unlawful" Courage
Kevin O'Neill
Kid) wrote:
>K_S_O...@yahoo.com (Kevin O'Neill) writes:
>
>>On 05 Mar 2002 18:20:04 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>>Kid) wrote:
>>
>>>>> No. Ownership resides with the person who has purchased the painting.
>>>>> However, ownership does not confer the same rights in the EU as in the
>>US.
>>>>
>>>>Umm, yes, that's what I said.
>>>
>>> I think you said something a little different, John. Also, what Kevin
>>asserts
>>>isn't entirely true; US artists do have similar moral rights as their EU
>>>counterparts, for at least certain types of art.
>>
>>FTR, all I contributed was a question regarding whose rights are being
>>protected here, the artists or the society's.
>
> Probably both. If the rights of artists are protected, this will encourage the
>production of new works of art, which will benefit society.
Well sure, but beside the point. The artist will almost surely value
his/her work differently than does society, esp after s/he is dead,
eh?
>>I still think I'm right, in a way.
>
> Sure, as long as that way doesn't consider, oh, say, the actual text of
>relevant US law, which assigns moral rights to artists, or more properly
>recognizes the moral rights of artists
But rather considers the effect of the law, right. It's a common
foible to look at intent rather than effect in analysis of legal
matters. I'll try to save you, but you have to stop jumping back in
when I pull you out.
>> Consider: I have art, in York
>>(Old York, in the UK). You buy art, in York (still old York). You
>>live in York (New York, that is. In the US). You want to go to your
>>York, and take the art there with you, from my York. But in your
>>York, you could cut the art up and make new art if you wanted.
>
> No, Kevin, as has been cited, you can't, unless the artist has been dead for
>some time, and maybe not even then.
OK, you've cited a statute, USC, right? Now, do you have case law?
In specific, do you have case law that upholds your pov, which is that
the rights of the artist are paramount? That would involve, say, a
bit of art that the rest of us think is bunk, but which the artist,
though she sold it to me, still does not want me to throw away when I
stop dating her, say. That would uphold your position, and I'd
shuddup. I rather doubt you'll find it.
OTOH, I bet you can find cases where the artist has been dead for ages
and ages, yet the art is protected. Why? Because we protect what we
value, not what any git with a penchant for throwing paint at the wall
thinks is important. Your reading would protect a painting that I in
fact broke in half and threw away yesterday, since the artist is still
alive, and would protect less a Basquiat, because he's dead. I bet
the effect is the other way around.
Also, you're quoting as though the protections were equal here and in
the EU. They're not. We, as has been pointed out, can colorize an
old b&w movie and show it here, but not there. The protections are
different, and thus my example does indeed hold; the greater EU
protections could hold, but only for something they felt like
protecting, which is to say, something they valued, artist alive or
dead.
In fact, in the site you cited, the last paragraph says:
"Because of the moral rights doctrine, rather than being an owner with
plenary rights, you are more like a trustee for your country's
artistic heritage."
Kevin
The AFCA Kid
>
>On 06 Mar 2002 01:02:37 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>Kid) wrote:
>
>>K_S_O...@yahoo.com (Kevin O'Neill) writes:
>>>FTR, all I contributed was a question regarding whose rights are being
>>>protected here, the artists or the society's.
>>
>> Probably both. If the rights of artists are protected, this will encourage
>the
>>production of new works of art, which will benefit society.
>
>Well sure, but beside the point.
I have no interest in talking past you so much as correcting your
misaprehensions.
> The artist will almost surely value
>his/her work differently than does society, esp after s/he is dead,
>eh?
Oh, no, not this. Anyway, it's probably best, and certainly easiest, to see
this as a relatively simple recognition of extensive and separate rights in
creating and owning art.
>
>>>I still think I'm right, in a way.
>>
>> Sure, as long as that way doesn't consider, oh, say, the actual text of
>>relevant US law, which assigns moral rights to artists, or more properly
>>recognizes the moral rights of artists
>
>But rather considers the effect of the law, right. It's a common
>foible to look at intent rather than effect in analysis of legal
>matters. I'll try to save you, but you have to stop jumping back in
>when I pull you out.
Please God, kill Kevin.
>
>>> Consider: I have art, in York
>>>(Old York, in the UK). You buy art, in York (still old York). You
>>>live in York (New York, that is. In the US). You want to go to your
>>>York, and take the art there with you, from my York. But in your
>>>York, you could cut the art up and make new art if you wanted.
>>
>> No, Kevin, as has been cited, you can't, unless the artist has been dead
>for
>>some time, and maybe not even then.
>
>OK, you've cited a statute, USC, right? Now, do you have case law?
No, sorry, fresh out. Why don't you look into it for us?
>In specific, do you have case law that upholds your pov, which is that
>the rights of the artist are paramount?
Paramount?
> That would involve, say, a
>bit of art that the rest of us think is bunk, but which the artist,
>though she sold it to me, still does not want me to throw away when I
>stop dating her, say.
I rather strongly suspect most of the case law deals with artists of some
established reputation, and not, say, anyone you could get a date with.
> That would uphold your position, and I'd
>shuddup. I rather doubt you'll find it.\
http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa7.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vDsS4tN5efwC:www.rosshardies.com/Pres
sReleases/11-98.htm+%22Jan+Martin%22+indianapolis&hl=en
http://www.artslaw.org/MORAL.HTM
(they actually lost that case, but the principle was still affirmed)
"Wojnarowicz v. American Family Assoc. (So. Dist. NY, 1990) (Full Text - 75k)
Defendant uses visual artwork funded by the National Endowment for the Arts in
political leaflets which disparge the works and the NEA. Respecting the morals
rights of a visual artist, the court enjoins the degrading publication of his
artwork. "
>
>OTOH, I bet you can find cases where the artist has been dead for ages
>and ages, yet the art is protected.
Yes, I'm sure I can find that too, although I think it's argued under a
different jurisprudence.
> Why? Because we protect what we
>value, not what any git with a penchant for throwing paint at the wall
>thinks is important.
It's the ordinary language of the law, Kevin.
> Your reading would protect a painting that I in
>fact broke in half and threw away yesterday, since the artist is still
>alive, a
Right.
>nd would protect less a Basquiat, because he's dead.
Maybe, but I think he's got some heirs or assignees
> I bet
>the effect is the other way around.
How much?
>
>Also, you're quoting as though the protections were equal here and in
>the EU.
::rolls eyes::
> They're not. We, as has been pointed out, can colorize an
>old b&w movie and show it here, but not there.
However, I do not believe you can saw up a painting, at least if I can get an
expert of some sort up on the stand who'll say "hey, that's a pretty good
painting."
> The protections are
>different, and thus my example does indeed hold; the greater EU
>protections could hold, but only for something they felt like
>protecting, which is to say, something they valued, artist alive or
>dead.
>
>In fact, in the site you cited, the last paragraph says:
>
>"Because of the moral rights doctrine, rather than being an owner with
>plenary rights, you are more like a trustee for your country's
>artistic heritage."
Note use of phrase "more like"
I also see the moral rights are not actually transferable, but are waivable.
Anyway, no sawing up paintings in the US, or bulldozing sculptures, whatever.
Estron
> Michelangelo is dead, so some agency other than him would have to
> assert his rights, and I am not sure what the KCAS is. If it's a
> sweatshop that makes garden statues, maybe, especially if they aren't
> art as legally defined but rather some mass produced item.
There's a legal definition of art?
> Yeah, okay. I must admit, I have only a slightly harder time imagining
> you creating a priceless piece of art.
Nope. I get paid, or at least tipped, people laugh at the funny lines,
and applaud at the end. Ever been applauded in your life?
--
All opinions expressed are exactly that.
The AFCA Kid
work due, I don't care, wrote:
>reviously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Dutch Courage, contributing yet
>another air ball to March Madness as "The AFCA Kid," wrote:
Air ball? More like hair ball, and I'm Sgt. Belker.
>
>> Michelangelo is dead, so some agency other than him would have to
>> assert his rights, and I am not sure what the KCAS is. If it's a
>> sweatshop that makes garden statues, maybe, especially if they aren't
>> art as legally defined but rather some mass produced item.
>
>There's a legal definition of art?
this amazes you how?
>
>> Yeah, okay. I must admit, I have only a slightly harder time imagining
>> you creating a priceless piece of art.
>
>Nope.
See, there you go.
> I get paid, or at least tipped, people laugh at the funny lines,
>and applaud at the end. Ever been applauded in your life?
Your mom gave me the clap once, does that count?
Mike Muth
On 5-Mar-2002, Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, The AFCA Kid wrote:
> > Well, or, and here's the real matter, that the creation of art, and the
> > ownership of art, in a way that didn't really apply to shoes or cake or
> > vertical drill presses, involved many levels of ownership, and that such
> > rights were not transfered unless specifically negotiated. It's also
> > apparently retroactive; since Modigliani didn't grant you the right to
> > saw up his painting, you didn't have it.
> Yes, I got the "bundle of sticks" analogy. Not all property rights are
> transferred -- in these cases. Might as well throw in the old phrase,
> "Everything's negotiable."
> However, with shoes, cake and drill presses, it's automatic that the
> right to change, deface or destroy is one of the rights granted with
> transfer of ownership. But not, apparently, with art.
Or with other intellectual property. In the case of shoes, cake and drill
presses wear & tear, alterations, or even destruction of the property are
assumed to be something inherent in the nature of the property. Simple
property (I'm not sure if this is the correct legal term) is treated
differently from intellectual property. In particular, intellectual property
is considered to be something of enduring value which would not normally
change under intended use. It's also considered a unique creation which means
it has an intrinsic value. Thus, Mona Lisa is protected but all those prints
of it are not. Simple property may be used, altered, maintained, and disposed
of in any manner the owner desires - providing that such actions do not
violate the laws which we use to regulate society.
In fact, if we consider the matter carefully, we can see that ownership of
anything does not give the owner a carte blanche to do as they wish with their
property.
[...]
> Do I have fewer rights when purchasing a sculpture if it was by
> Michelangelo, as opposed to Kansas City Art Statuary?
As I understand it, the law does not distinguish between the two. In either
case, someone created (or authored) the work and has certain inalienable
rights which may not normally be assigned.
> Conversely, suppose I purchased a priceless piece of art and, instead of
> displaying its beauty to the world as the artist intended, locked it
> inside a vault with the intention of hiding it away from the rest of the
> world, a la that Cyndi Lauper song? Would I have the right to do that?
You have that right - unless so locking it away would somehow cause damage to
the work of art itself.
Mike
The AFCA Kid
>> However, with shoes, cake and drill presses, it's automatic that the
>> right to change, deface or destroy is one of the rights granted with
>> transfer of ownership. But not, apparently, with art.
>
>Or with other intellectual property. In the case of shoes, cake and drill
>presses wear & tear, alterations, or even destruction of the property are
>assumed to be something inherent in the nature of the property. Simple
>property (I'm not sure if this is the correct legal term)
I believe the term is "chattel." Typically in America and other "common law"
countries, there are no rights in chattel beyond simple ownership, and I
suppose this is what the kiddos here are shaking their fists about. To them, a
painting really kind of is a shoe or a cake or a vertical drill press.
>is treated
>differently from intellectual property.
And real property
> In particular, intellectual property
>is considered to be something of enduring value which would not normally
>change under intended use. It's also considered a unique creation which
>means
>it has an intrinsic value. Thus, Mona Lisa is protected but all those prints
>of it are not. Simple property may be used, altered, maintained, and
>disposed
>of in any manner the owner desires - providing that such actions do not
>violate the laws which we use to regulate society.
>
>In fact, if we consider the matter carefully, we can see that ownership of
>anything does not give the owner a carte blanche to do as they wish with
>their
>property.
>
>[...]
>
>> Do I have fewer rights when purchasing a sculpture if it was by
>> Michelangelo, as opposed to Kansas City Art Statuary?
>
>As I understand it, the law does not distinguish between the two.
KCAS probably works on a "work for hire" basis and otherwise produces objects
which do not meet the VARA definitions of objects with "moral rights"
considerations.
> In either
>case, someone created (or authored) the work and has certain inalienable
>rights which may not normally be assigned.
>
>> Conversely, suppose I purchased a priceless piece of art and, instead of
>> displaying its beauty to the world as the artist intended, locked it
>> inside a vault with the intention of hiding it away from the rest of the
>> world, a la that Cyndi Lauper song? Would I have the right to do that?
>
>You have that right - unless so locking it away would somehow cause damage to
>the work of art itself.
In the EU, at least, an artist probably has the right to, at the very least,
buy it back from you. In Sweden, an artist can buy it back from you for the
price of the materials, so Da Vinci could get the Mona Lisa back for the price
of some canvas and linseed oil. You know, if it were in Sweden. Or maybe it was
Switzerland. I dunno. One of those places.
Anyway, at a minimum, it seems no sawing up paintings, even in the US.
Boron Elgar
>Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Dutch Courage, contributing yet
>another air ball to March Madness as "The AFCA Kid," wrote:
>
>> Michelangelo is dead, so some agency other than him would have to
>> assert his rights, and I am not sure what the KCAS is. If it's a
>> sweatshop that makes garden statues, maybe, especially if they aren't
>> art as legally defined but rather some mass produced item.
>
>There's a legal definition of art?
>
>> Yeah, okay. I must admit, I have only a slightly harder time imagining
>> you creating a priceless piece of art.
>
>Nope. I get paid, or at least tipped, people laugh at the funny lines,
>and applaud at the end. Ever been applauded in your life?
His parents gave him a standing ovation when he left home.
Boron
Dana Carpender
Well, thank you for that particularly artful explanation.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
John Hatpin
>I think it depends on the art. If it's one of the Great Arts of York,
>a thousand year old stained glass window showing the local seawall for
>example, then I think they would not allow me to sell it to you [...]
It would be a very impressive window, bearing in mind that York is an
inland city, so has never felt the need for a local seawall, let alone
built one.
--
John "silly nit-picking mood" Hatpin
Kevin O'Neill
Kid) wrote:
>
>> The artist will almost surely value
>>his/her work differently than does society, esp after s/he is dead,
>>eh?
>
>Oh, no, not this. Anyway, it's probably best, and certainly easiest, to see
>this as a relatively simple recognition of extensive and separate rights in
>creating and owning art.
Except that that's not what the law does. You have yet to answer the
point about little known, or little valued, artists. If the law did
what you say, it would protect them. Murder laws, after all, protect
even the worst of the population. If this law is in effect in the
manner you describe, it would protect even the worst of artists. But
it don't.
>>>>I still think I'm right, in a way.
>>>
>>> Sure, as long as that way doesn't consider, oh, say, the actual text of
>>>relevant US law, which assigns moral rights to artists, or more properly
>>>recognizes the moral rights of artists
>>
>>But rather considers the effect of the law, right. It's a common
>>foible to look at intent rather than effect in analysis of legal
>>matters. I'll try to save you, but you have to stop jumping back in
>>when I pull you out.
>
> Please God, kill Kevin.
He's not there. There's only Me.
>>>> Consider: I have art, in York
>>>>(Old York, in the UK). You buy art, in York (still old York). You
>>>>live in York (New York, that is. In the US). You want to go to your
>>>>York, and take the art there with you, from my York. But in your
>>>>York, you could cut the art up and make new art if you wanted.
>>>
>>> No, Kevin, as has been cited, you can't, unless the artist has been dead
>>for
>>>some time, and maybe not even then.
>>
>>OK, you've cited a statute, USC, right? Now, do you have case law?
>
> No, sorry, fresh out. Why don't you look into it for us?
I don't think it exists.
>>In specific, do you have case law that upholds your pov, which is that
>>the rights of the artist are paramount?
>
> Paramount?
Yeah, I thought we'd make a movie. Does the word confuse you? You're
claiming that the rights of the artist are paramount, I'm claiming
that the rights of society are paramount.
>> That would involve, say, a
>>bit of art that the rest of us think is bunk, but which the artist,
>>though she sold it to me, still does not want me to throw away when I
>>stop dating her, say.
>
> I rather strongly suspect most of the case law deals with artists of some
>established reputation, and not, say, anyone you could get a date with.
Trust me here, chuckles, established artists have dated lowlier skunge
than either you or I.
>> That would uphold your position, and I'd
>>shuddup. I rather doubt you'll find it.\
>
>http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa7.htm
Addresses murals, a special case we might get into when we're done
with what we're doing. It's not the subject under discussion.
>http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vDsS4tN5efwC:www.rosshardies.com/Pres
>sReleases/11-98.htm+%22Jan+Martin%22+indianapolis&hl=en
>
Seems to relate to an artist of considerable repute. Not what I
asked. This could be explained by either theory, protecting the
artist or protecting the society's right to see/preserve the art.
>http://www.artslaw.org/MORAL.HTM
Ah ha. From the article:
"5. Since VARA will protect against destruction of "a work of
recognized stature," an artist must show that art experts, the art
community, or society in general view the work as possessing such
stature. The work need not be considered equal in stature to a Picasso
or a Chagall and it need not be aesthetically pleasing to the trier of
fact."
I submit, therefore, that it's not really an artist's rights that are
being protected. If it were, it wouldn't have to be good art, any
more than you have to be a good person to be protected under the law
against assault or whatever.
Now, I know this isn't what the law _says_. But it's what it _does_.
Which is really what's important, don't you agree?
>>OTOH, I bet you can find cases where the artist has been dead for ages
>>and ages, yet the art is protected.
>
> Yes, I'm sure I can find that too, although I think it's argued under a
>different jurisprudence.
So the total effect here is to protect valuable art, and ignore lousey
art, as we kinda thought at the beginning. I don't care what the leg
thought they were doing, or how they justify it, they in fact protect
are that the society finds valuable.
> However, I do not believe you can saw up a painting, at least if I can get an
>expert of some sort up on the stand who'll say "hey, that's a pretty good
>painting."
Why the qualification? If you're protecting artist's rights, you
would protect all of them.
>>"Because of the moral rights doctrine, rather than being an owner with
>>plenary rights, you are more like a trustee for your country's
>>artistic heritage."
>
>Note use of phrase "more like"
Right. More like that than like the artist still owning rights to the
art, for example.
>I also see the moral rights are not actually transferable, but are waivable.
>
>Anyway, no sawing up paintings in the US, or bulldozing sculptures, whatever.
Unless it sucks, in which case the artist can go piss into the wind.
I threw a painting away a few days ago. Gonna turn me in?
Kevin
Kevin O'Neill
Estron
Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Dutch Courage wrote:
> Your mom gave me the clap once, does that count?
That does it.
This guy "Dutch Courage" has always come off as a person lacking in
consideration for others and just a bit full of himself. But anyone who
thinks nothing of making cheap sex jokes about a woman who's dead and
gone, on the 40th anniversary of her death no less, brands himself as an
utterly worthless asshole, unworthy of the oxygen he consumes.
My mother, Dolores Bernice Mitchell (1921-1962), was a fine, outspoken
woman who, although honest, was never unnecessarily hurtful. She loved
much, and was much loved. Forty years after her passing, she is still
sorely missed.
This guy who calls himself "Dutch Courage" will not be.
--
John Mitchell
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Boron Elgar
>My mother, Dolores Bernice Mitchell (1921-1962), was a fine, outspoken
>woman who, although honest, was never unnecessarily hurtful. She loved
>much, and was much loved. Forty years after her passing, she is still
>sorely missed.
A toast to your mom, Estron. May she long be remembered in such a
beautiful way.
It'll be 4 years without my mom on March 15th.
Boron
The AFCA Kid
>On 06 Mar 2002 03:18:28 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>Kid) wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, no, not this. Anyway, it's probably best, and certainly easiest, to see
>>this as a relatively simple recognition of extensive and separate rights in
>>creating and owning art.
>
>Except that that's not what the law does.
Oh, well, I kind of think it is.
> You have yet to answer the
>point about little known, or little valued, artists.
Well, you don't have to be picasso for VARA protection, but on the other hand
we don't really need the courts choked because of waitresses throwing away
someone's napkin doodles, either.
> If the law did
>what you say, it would protect them.
Well, except...one's a napkin doodle, and one's art, deciding where on the
continuum a given work by a given creator lies is a TWTPLATM issue.
> Murder laws, after all, protect
>even the worst of the population.
Sure, okay, but privacy laws protect private citizens more than celebrities,
while just the reverse is true of "rights of publicity." Yeah, it's a funny old
world, sometimes.
> If this law is in effect in the
>manner you describe, it would protect even the worst of artists.
Why?
> But
>it don't.
I think you're just stretching a point because you enjoy arguing, Kevin.
>>>>> Consider: I have art, in York
>>>>>(Old York, in the UK). You buy art, in York (still old York). You
>>>>>live in York (New York, that is. In the US). You want to go to your
>>>>>York, and take the art there with you, from my York. But in your
>>>>>York, you could cut the art up and make new art if you wanted.
>>>>
>>>> No, Kevin, as has been cited, you can't, unless the artist has been dead
>>>for
>>>>some time, and maybe not even then.
>>>
>>>OK, you've cited a statute, USC, right? Now, do you have case law?
>>
>> No, sorry, fresh out. Why don't you look into it for us?
>
>I don't think it exists.
Well, turns out it does, as we see later in this post.
>
>>>In specific, do you have case law that upholds your pov, which is that
>>>the rights of the artist are paramount?
>>
>> Paramount?
>
>Yeah, I thought we'd make a movie.
I hear you're a genius in France.
> Does the word confuse you? You're
>claiming that the rights of the artist are paramount, I'm claiming
>that the rights of society are paramount.
I don't even think it's an important question.
>
>>> That would involve, say, a
>>>bit of art that the rest of us think is bunk, but which the artist,
>>>though she sold it to me, still does not want me to throw away when I
>>>stop dating her, say.
>>
>> I rather strongly suspect most of the case law deals with artists of some
>>established reputation, and not, say, anyone you could get a date with.
>
>Trust me here, chuckles,
Chuckles? I'm more of a Mike and Ike kind of guy. Anyway, yeah, if you dated,
say, Richard Longo, and he gave you a drawing, and you erased it, he'd have
some recourse to seek rememdy from the court, I gather from the case law,
though God alone knows why you'd do something like that
> established artists have dated lowlier skunge
>than either you or I.
Oh, yeah? Like who?
>>> That would uphold your position, and I'd
>>>shuddup. I rather doubt you'll find it.\
>>
>>http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa7.htm
>
>Addresses murals, a special case we might get into when we're done
>with what we're doing. It's not the subject under discussion.
it's a protected class of art under the VARA. Kind of like we were talking
about, Living Artists seeking rememdy though a moral rights argument.
>
>>http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vDsS4tN5efwC:www.rosshardies.com/Pres
>>sReleases/11-98.htm+%22Jan+Martin%22+indianapolis&hl=en
>>
>
>Seems to relate to an artist of considerable repute. Not what I
>asked.
Boy, are you a weasel.
> This could be explained by either theory, protecting the
>artist or protecting the society's right to see/preserve the art.
>>http://www.artslaw.org/MORAL.HTM
>
>Ah ha. From the article:
>
>"5. Since VARA will protect against destruction of "a work of
>recognized stature," an artist must show that art experts, the art
>community, or society in general view the work as possessing such
>stature. The work need not be considered equal in stature to a Picasso
>or a Chagall and it need not be aesthetically pleasing to the trier of
>fact."
>
>I submit, therefore, that it's not really an artist's rights that are
>being protected.
Sorry, Dutch Courage doesn't accept unsolicited submissions.
> If it were, it wouldn't have to be good art,
Well, it doesn't have to be good art.
> any
>more than you have to be a good person to be protected under the law
>against assault or whatever.
>
>Now, I know this isn't what the law _says_. But it's what it _does_
I think that's an unteneble argument.
.
>Which is really what's important, don't you agree?
>
>>>OTOH, I bet you can find cases where the artist has been dead for ages
>>>and ages, yet the art is protected.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure I can find that too, although I think it's argued under a
>>different jurisprudence.
>
>So the total effect here is to protect valuable art, and ignore lousey
>art, as we kinda thought at the beginning.
Well, or art of some recognizable value; it may well be of limited commercial
value.
> I don't care what the leg
>thought they were doing, or how they justify it, they in fact protect
>are that the society finds valuable.
>
>> However, I do not believe you can saw up a painting, at least if I can get
>an
>>expert of some sort up on the stand who'll say "hey, that's a pretty good
>>painting."
>
>Why the qualification?
Well, actually, he doesn't have to say "hey, that's a pretty good painting."
> If you're protecting artist's rights, you
>would protect all of them.
Well, but...some people are artists, and some people are doodling on the
phone. The VARA doesn't really apply to, your GF leaves a sketch you made for
her on the bus. Still, I think it's more out of practical considerations than
"art society finds valuable," if, say, a work of art would be worth more sawn
up.
>
>>>"Because of the moral rights doctrine, rather than being an owner with
>>>plenary rights, you are more like a trustee for your country's
>>>artistic heritage."
>>
>>Note use of phrase "more like"
>
>Right. More like that than like the artist still owning rights to the
>art, for example.
Well, or, that's the effect the artist still owning rights has.
>>I also see the moral rights are not actually transferable, but are waivable.
>>
>>Anyway, no sawing up paintings in the US, or bulldozing sculptures,
>whatever.
>
>Unless it sucks,
Well, no. It could very well suck. Perhaps suckiness is the point. You
couldn't saw up a Leroy Neiman painting, either.
> in which case the artist can go piss into the wind.
>I threw a painting away a few days ago. Gonna turn me in?
It's not that kind of a law. the artist would have to assert his or her rights.
GrapeApe
"your Mama" taunt is one that almost everyone should have learned to dismiss
and ignore as totally frivolous sometime in grade school. Its like feeding the
troll if you start crying you know...
Oh Yeah? well.. YOUR MOMMA!
Slowly I turned.....
Margaret Kane
"John Hatpin" <ag...@brookview.kaDELETETHISBITroo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tumc8u0hc6bbdn2pk...@4ax.com...
Well, duh, that's why it's Great Art, and not just your ordinary, everyday
art.
Margaret "philistines" Kane Schoen
Dr H
On 6 Mar 2002, The AFCA Kid wrote:
} Dr H hiaw...@efn.org
}
}> But if you *could* buy it, it is not
}> clear that anyone in the US could /legally/ stop you from chopping it up.
}
} There are laws in the US, at both a state and federal level, as well as by
}international agreement, which prohibit and provide means by which an artist
}can prevent or remedy the destruction, distortion, mutiliation or alteration of
}his or her work. Da Vinci being dead complicates matters somewhat, sure, but
}there are provisions for perpetual application, and I am sure someone would
}figure out how they apply to the mona lisa, for heaven's sake. In any case, the
}general rule, which is more or less what the OP was getting at, is the general
}rule.
This kind of assumes that someone buys a famous work -- say Mona --
and then publicly announces that they intend to destroy it. There
are plenty of people who buy works by famous artists and then keep
them in private collections. Who's to know what gets done in private?
Are you saying that there might be some sort of provision requiring
the artwork to be periodically inspected?
}> At least for "buy" it the sense in which I believe that it is usually
}> understood to apply to most commodities. If you are talking about
}> "buying" in the sense that one would acquire certain rights to the
}> purchased object but not others, well that isn't what is generally
}> assumed when you "buy" something.
}
} It is what happens, however, when you are talking about art. Please do not
}talk when you do not know, and listen to those who do, as now.
Well right now I'm not really convinced that you know all that much
more about it than I do. People buy art all the time /without/ any
strange strings attached. I've done it myself, although I've never
bought anything especially famous or expensive. And I also expect
that there are significant difference in interpretation of what
constituted both "ownership" and "destruction" as regards different
types of are -- say, a painting; a piece of architecture; a piece
of music; or a video tape of a performance piece.
Dr H
Dr H
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Scratchie wrote:
}Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
}
}: This guy "Dutch Courage" has always come off as a person lacking in
}: consideration for others and just a bit full of himself.
}
}The hell you say.
I wonder if any woman ever let Dutch get close enough to her
to give him the clap?
Dr H
Dr H
On 5 Mar 2002 ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
}> So, altering the Mona Lisa with Leonardo Da Vinci's explicit permission is
}> forbidden by law - in many countries, but not in the USA.
}
}Cool. Horay for the USA!
I think I'm with you on this one, John, though maybe not for exactly
the same reasons. :)
There are many, many examples of works of art which have been
created based on other existing works, in some cases using them
as materials. If this is expressly forbidden, even to owners of
the works, then it is a denial of the rights of contemporary
creative artists who find their inspiration in this vein.
This is not such a cut-and-dried subject in Europe, either, nor is
it entirely a contemporary issue. When the murals in the Sistine
Chapel were being restored hard decisions had to be made about the
"modesty drapes" -- painted-on clothing covering some of Michelangelo's
nudes. It seems that some of the clothing was painted on by other masters;
whether the clothing was removed to restore the original nude, or left to
obscure it, the work of /some/ historical artist was destroyed.
Dr H
The AFCA Kid
>
>On 6 Mar 2002, The AFCA Kid wrote:
>
>} Dr H hiaw...@efn.org
>}
>}> But if you *could* buy it, it is not
>}> clear that anyone in the US could /legally/ stop you from chopping it up.
>}
>} There are laws in the US, at both a state and federal level, as well as by
>}international agreement, which prohibit and provide means by which an artist
>}can prevent or remedy the destruction, distortion, mutiliation or alteration
>of
>}his or her work. Da Vinci being dead complicates matters somewhat, sure, but
>}there are provisions for perpetual application, and I am sure someone would
>}figure out how they apply to the mona lisa, for heaven's sake. In any case,
>the
>}general rule, which is more or less what the OP was getting at, is the
>general
>}rule.
>
> This kind of assumes that someone buys a famous work -- say Mona --
> and then publicly announces that they intend to destroy it.
Yeah, probably another reason why most of the case law concerns sculptures and
murals.
> There
> are plenty of people who buy works by famous artists and then keep
> them in private collections. Who's to know what gets done in private?
You're right, there are few crimes one may be prosecuted for breaking when no
one knows you've done it.
> Are you saying that there might be some sort of provision requiring
> the artwork to be periodically inspected?
I hardly think those Frenchies would just leave the Mona Lisa out by the curb
with a sign attached that reads "Free to good home."
>
>}> At least for "buy" it the sense in which I believe that it is usually
>}> understood to apply to most commodities. If you are talking about
>}> "buying" in the sense that one would acquire certain rights to the
>}> purchased object but not others, well that isn't what is generally
>}> assumed when you "buy" something.
>}
>} It is what happens, however, when you are talking about art. Please do not
>}talk when you do not know, and listen to those who do, as now.
>
> Well right now I'm not really convinced that you know all that much
> more about it than I do.
Yes, one of the unfortunate hallmarks of Dr Hism.
> People buy art all the time /without/ any
> strange strings attached.
Alas, no, no they don't. There's always the issue of copyright.
> I've done it myself, although I've never
> bought anything especially famous or expensive. And I also expect
> that there are significant difference in interpretation of what
> constituted both "ownership" and "destruction" as regards different
> types of are
Don't worry, folks...he's not a real pirate.
> -- say, a painting;
Covered under VARA
> a piece of architecture;
Not exactly art, strictly speaking
> a piece
> of music;
I bet you've never bought a piece of music.
> or a video tape of a performance piece.
You'd be enjoined from re-editing it and then disseminating the tape, although
this woulds also be one of the crimes they couldn't prosecute your for if no
one knew you commited, and you could do what you like to the physical tape
itself.
But you do see where there's trickyness associated with intellectual property
beyond mere chattel, don't you?
The AFCA Kid
Bob Ward
Kid) wrote:
>-: Dr H hiaw...@efn.org
>-:Date: 3/7/02 7:13 PM Eastern writes:
>-:
>-:>
>-:>On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Scratchie wrote:
>-:>
>-:>}Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>-:>}
>-:>}: This guy "Dutch Courage" has always come off as a person lacking in
>-:>}: consideration for others and just a bit full of himself.
>-:>}
>-:>}The hell you say.
>-:>
>-:> I wonder if any woman ever let Dutch get close enough to her
>-:> to give him the clap?
>-:
>-:Yeah, because since when have women been attracted to arrogant jerks?
Money talks, does it?
--
This space left intentionally blank