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

31–40 of 72 posts

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

#31

Post by dragonwriter »

sverige wrote: post #23
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

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 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 th…

> True, but usually the onus is on plaintiff to demonstrate the affirmative.

As it was here. The thing is any evidence (however weak) that a claim is true, if uncountered, can suffice for proof by a preponderance of the evidence for the claim. So, it doesn't take strong evidence to create some burden for the defense to disprove the plaintiffs claim, but the degree of proof necessary is set by the strength of the plaintiff's evidence, since the standard is preponderance of the evidence.

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

#32

Post by haldean »

failthfully wrote: post #29
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.

> 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…

What about creating art requires you to publicly claim authorship, though? I agree that artists could refuse to acknowledge creating a work to attempt to somehow screw over its owner, but I don't see what about that is illegal; refusing to affirm something isn't lying or fraud.

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

#33

Post by ghaff »

mhurron wrote: post #8
aab0 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. Which actually should never have mattered, because the trial never should have happened. Doig said, no, that is not my painting. That should have been the end of it, but the other party didn't like that and tried to get the court to say otherwise because they thought they had basically won the lottery.

One can imagine scenarios where an artist disclaims that they created something out of spite (with family or whatever) and that disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item. If that painting or whatever was fairly obviously the artist's work, would you still feel the same?

This case seems odd based on the news coverage though (based on the coverage in respectable publications like The New York Times and Guardian). I would have, perhaps naively, assumed that the plaintiffs would have been expected to have at least some evidence that Doig (with a different spelling) was the artist in question before it went to trial. Which doesn't seem to have been the case.

Of course, this was a civil suit and the reality is that you can sue anyone for just about any reason. For better or worse.

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

#35

Post by JustSomeNobody »

sverige wrote: post #17
pfarnsworth wrote: post #10

The idea that this had to be argued in a court of law is absolutely ridiculous.

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.

I don't get this either. The burden of proof should not be on Doig.

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

#36

Post by failthfully »

haldean wrote: post #32
failthfully wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What about creating art requires you to publicly claim authorship, though? I agree that artists could refuse to acknowledge creating a work to attempt to somehow screw over its owner, but I don't see what about that is illegal; refusing to affirm something isn't lying or fraud.

It raises interesting questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I know nothing about whether you could get force someone to affirm a work. Seems weird, but I'd be willing to bet it's happened.

My instinct is that a lie doesn't need to be told to create harm in a case like this where significant value depends on whether an important person created the work. Might search for some legal blogs to see if this has been analyzed further.

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

#37

Post by biztos »

First, let me say that this looks like mistaken identity or worse; and that I myself am an artist, and like most part-time artists I'm very sympathetic to the interests of full-time artists.

However, this sentiment is unrealistically simple:

"I feel a living artist should be the one who gets to say yea or nay and not be taken to task and forced to go back 40 years in time."

The way the art market works, attribution (and provenance) is a big part of valuation. If you're a famous artist and I bought one of your paintings without having you sign a bunch of paperwork -- and who does that with young artists and amateur collectors? -- then you have the power to give or withhold a lot of value.

I think the artist was in the right here. But you have to consider what his statement would mean if he had in fact painted that picture. By denying its authenticity he would be trying to destroy its value. You can choose what you acknowledge, but as an artist you don't get to choose your own history retroactively. Like anybody else you can tell your own story, but yours might not be the only version.

Of course, this is why real collectors document provenance, sometimes extensively; and why a lot of artists will by default include a "certificate of authenticity" of some kind with every sale.

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

#38

Post by chubot »

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…

Yeah it sounded like the plaintiffs had a decent reason to believe it was his painting at first.

But then the defendants found the "real" Pete Doige. At that point the planitiffs should have verified it and dropped the lawsuit, but for some reason they chose to keep going.

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

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

haldean wrote: post #32
failthfully wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What about creating art requires you to publicly claim authorship, though? I agree that artists could refuse to acknowledge creating a work to attempt to somehow screw over its owner, but I don't see what about that is illegal; refusing to affirm something isn't lying or fraud.

> What about creating art requires you to publicly claim authorship, though?

In this case, I think the alleged reason he was required to do so was because he had previously denied authorship, and that doing so was a false statement that harmed the owner of the painting which the acknowledgement of authorship was necessary to undue the harm.

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

#40

Post by beambot »

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..

So if I make art "in the style of artist ", then all my work belongs to that artist?

(I'm not talking about blatant copies.)

Post reply on HN