Hungry Donner said:
Kargathia said:
The interesting question is whether she can lay any kind of claim on her work, or whether the church owning the painting by default negates any claims.
If there are any EU rulings that recognize graffiti as art she probably has a strong case . . . . but otherwise I suspect she's out of luck. Rather than trying to get a cut of the money she should just be happy its prophetability [sic] likely prevents them from suing her.
If the church is smart they're putting most of the funds into an account for future restoration work. I imagine once the tourist dollars stop rushing in they'll want their old Jesus picture back. Then again, they could always start worshiping damn dirty apes.
The graffiti comparison is quite apt, as it shares both the vandalism aspect, and the appreciation for the work.
The legal questions remain unanswered though: to the best of my knowledge no graffiti artist ever demanded a cut from increased profits his or her work generated.
Some of Banksy's work has been sold at auction (eg. the demolished phone booth), so one would assume property overrides any claims made by the artist.
Of course, this is Banksy we're talking about - even if he had a legal basis to claim he probably wouldn't.
I'm about 99% sure though there is no ruling by the EU recognising the value of graffiti on public property, or any claims the creator might have.
Rooster Cogburn said:
It's obvious the money would not be there without that woman, but it's equally obvious she is not entitled to get any of it. The painting isn't "her work" or even "work", she vandalized someone's shit and she is not entitled to benefit from that act. I have no idea how the Spanish system works but based on what I'm reading here the suit is outrageous and frivolous.
The new painting is definitely recognised as her work - nobody is disputing that she, in fact, was the one to give the object its new look.
Do remember that courts of law don't deal with loose terms as "she vandalised someone's shit": they call experts, and deal with facts.
Experts provide an opinion on the artistic merit of her paintjob - in this case that would be "absolutely nothing", and the facts would deal with the commercial value of the painting, as any claim for damages would be primarily based on that.
That is where it gets interesting, as she definitely increased the commercial value of the painting, while completely ruining any artistic or historic worth it might have had.
What matters here is that it belonged to someone else, and whether she can claim intellectual property on an act of vandalism. On the whole I suspect you're right, and the suit is going to be thrown out as frivolous.
