Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#21

Post by 33degrees »

aab0 wrote: post #6
surge wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly that an artist had to pay legal fees to defend himself because he told the truth and someone didn't like it. The ridiculous litigiousness of the whole thing is disconcerting. The last name wasn't even spelled correctly, if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.

Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. I don't remember the stuff about the other Doig's sister, and the prison records had not yet surfaced (the prison system had been unable to find them at the time).

Doige's sister was mentioned in the New York Time's article from July, so that part isn't new.

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#22

Post by Dobbs »

jeandejean wrote: post #11

And just when will court punish people wrongly suing artists that denies you make money with counterfeits ? Even worse is the greediness of these art dealers that just want to make money whatever the cost to artists. Art market is sick.

This isn't a counterfeit. It is a case of mistaken identity and a lot of money on the line. A Pete Doig did in fact paint the picture. The problem is that Pete Doig is not Peter Doig.

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#23

Post by sverige »

dragonwriter wrote: post #20
sverige wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law, and usually judges stop that crap very early in a case. Amazed it took this long.

> That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law Not really. All that it means to "prove a negative" in this kind of a case (a civil case where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence") is that you have to bring sufficient evidence that the trier of fact (jury or judge, as the case may be) finds that the claims that the other party is making are less like…

True, but usually the onus is on plaintiff to demonstrate the affirmative. The prison guard's story was very weak in demonstrating that "famous artist" Peter Doig was the same as "unknown prison artist" Pete Doige, especially given that Peter Doig had no incentive for disavowing a work he had already sold. "Embarrassment" caused by imprisonment or drug use are hardly motivators for artists. Some use those kinds of things as career enhancers.

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#24

Post by psykpsyk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #20
sverige wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law, and usually judges stop that crap very early in a case. Amazed it took this long.

> That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law Not really. All that it means to "prove a negative" in this kind of a case (a civil case where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence") is that you have to bring sufficient evidence that the trier of fact (jury or judge, as the case may be) finds that the claims that the other party is making are less like…

What kind of a sick system is that? Where I live, and in most of Europe, I think, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. Common law is stupid...

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#25

Post by totalcrepe »

nathan_f77 wrote: post #13

I wonder if the painting will actually be worth something now that it's been all over the media.

To be safe, I think the picture should be awarded to Peter Doig. Perhaps on the grounds that the owner admits it confusable with his brand..

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#27

Post by Normal_gaussian »

jeandejean wrote: post #11

And just when will court punish people wrongly suing artists that denies you make money with counterfeits ? Even worse is the greediness of these art dealers that just want to make money whatever the cost to artists. Art market is sick.

The third to last paragraph

> The artist’s lawyers said they identified the real Pete Doige, whose records matched Fletcher’s description. Doige died in 2012, but his sister, Marilyn Doige Bovard, testified at the trial that the work was created by her late brother.

Suggests that there was reason for the corrections officer to believe he had a genuine painting, and not a counterfeit. However as this made it to court it may be that the plaintiffs were in a little too deep.

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#28

Post by Normal_gaussian »

totalcrepe wrote: post #25
nathan_f77 wrote: post #13

I wonder if the painting will actually be worth something now that it's been all over the media.

To be safe, I think the picture should be awarded to Peter Doig. Perhaps on the grounds that the owner admits it confusable with his brand..

He should team up with the family and make a collection called "Pete come Peter" - composed of Peter's reinterpretations of original works by Pete.

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#29

Post by failthfully »

surge wrote: post #4
kevinastone wrote: post #3

The facts of the case (as summarized in the article) makes this seem like an obvious case of mistaken identity. Not sure what's noteworthy here.

Mostly that an artist had to pay legal fees to defend himself because he told the truth and someone didn't like it. The ridiculous litigiousness of the whole thing is disconcerting. The last name wasn't even spelled correctly, if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.

> if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.

Disagree. While the linked case is indeed ridiculous, I can imagine a scenario where an artist might deny creating a work to harm the work's owner. That's something that clearly falls under tort law and a simple denial shouldn't provide immunity.

If you're mean, there are many ways to make individuals miserable through fringe use of the civil courts. All of it perfectly legal.

Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

#30

Post by TylerE »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #27
jeandejean wrote: post #11

And just when will court punish people wrongly suing artists that denies you make money with counterfeits ? Even worse is the greediness of these art dealers that just want to make money whatever the cost to artists. Art market is sick.

The third to last paragraph > The artist’s lawyers said they identified the real Pete Doige, whose records matched Fletcher’s description. Doige died in 2012, but his sister, Marilyn Doige Bovard, testified at the trial that the work was created by her late brother. Suggests that there was reason for the corrections officer to believe he had a genuine painting, and not a counterfeit. However as this made it to court…

Note spellings: Peter Doig vs Pete Doige.
Post reply on HN