Woman Demands Royalties on Destroyed Jesus Fresco

[Formica Archonis]

Something tragic happens.
Internet makes it funny.
Idiots go and make it tragic again.

Nice job breaking it AGAIN.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I guess my stance on this is a bit controversial, though I don't know why. Yes, she should get a cut. Why? Because the people running the church decided that it has value. If they had done nothing but condemn the act and try to raise money for the painting's restoration, then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the church decided that this incident was something to be capitalized on, and the lady should get royalties for that same as any "artist" would if their "art" was being used for profit.

It's an abomination or it's an asset. Can't have it both ways.

I get what you are saying, but I don't see where you're jumping from "it has value" to "SHE should get a cut". She is not an artist, the painting is not art anymore, and it was never hers. You can't draw a dong on the side of someone's house and say you own it now. She is related to the proceeds in that she fucked up the painting but I'm not seeing where any sum of proceeds should go to her. It's true the money would not be there if not for her, but that alone doesn't entitle her to it.

 

[saito82]

Yes but what would Jesus do....probably not profit off an image of himself or condone others who do haha

 

[Scars Unseen]

I guess my stance on this is a bit controversial, though I don't know why. Yes, she should get a cut. Why? Because the people running the church decided that it has value. If they had done nothing but condemn the act and try to raise money for the painting's restoration, then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the church decided that this incident was something to be capitalized on, and the lady should get royalties for that same as any "artist" would if their "art" was being used for profit.

It's an abomination or it's an asset. Can't have it both ways.

I get what you're saying, but I don't see where you're jumping from "it has value" to "SHE should get a cut". She is not an artist, the painting is not art anymore, and it's not hers. She is related to the proceeds in that she fucked up the painting but I'm not seeing where any sum of proceeds should go to her. It's true the money would not be there if not for her, but that alone doesn't entitle her to it.

You say that it's not art. On what basis do you claim that? Keep in mind that there is some art I find pretty awful out there, including another award winning work of art that defaces(ha!) a statue of Jesus in possibly a worse manner than this: the Piss Christ. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ] As for whether the "restoration" belongs to her or the church... well I'm not even going to try to figure out where physical property law ends and where intellectual property law begins in my own country, much less a foreign one. According to current interpretation of law, I own a bunch of plastic disks containing gaming content that publishers have "graciously" allowed me to use.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

To Cecilia Gimenez:
You ruined the painting, idiot. A centuries-old picture of Jesus was turned into a joke by your hand. You don't get to see a dime.

I may not be a fan of art, but this is completely stupid.

Just... stahp.

 

[antipunt]

=_=

*cue jetpack

:I don't want to live on this planet anymore:

 

[ritchards]

I think the truth is likely a lot simpler: greed, capitalizing on a spot of big, blind luck.

Yep, that's what the church is doing all right...

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You say that it's not art. On what basis do you claim that? Keep in mind that there is some art I find pretty awful out there, including another award winning work of art that defaces(ha!) a statue of Jesus in possibly a worse manner than this: the Piss Christ. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ] As for whether the "restoration" belongs to her or the church... well I'm not even going to try to figure out where physical property law ends and where intellectual property law begins in my own country, much less a foreign one. According to current interpretation of law, I own a bunch of plastic disks containing gaming content that publishers have "graciously" allowed me to use.

I say it's not art because, well, come the fuck on. OK, even if you want to go to "literally anything and everything is art" it doesn't really matter because this painting isn't being appreciated as art. It's a curiosity, like George Washington's wooden teeth only funnier.

The "restoration" belongs to the church, there is absolutely no two ways about it. Like I edited my earlier post to say, you can't draw a dong on the side of someone's house and say you own it. I realize you're just saying that copyright law is complicated, but issues like software ownership really have no bearing on this. Those are nuanced, tricky cases, this one isn't.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Did you paint the original? No.

Were you sanctioned to restore this? No.

Did you have a valid contract with the town, church, or anything else? NO.

Now tell me why you deserve royalities for destroying a piece of art?

 

[Scars Unseen]

I guess my stance on this is a bit controversial, though I don't know why. Yes, she should get a cut. Why? Because the people running the church decided that it has value. If they had done nothing but condemn the act and try to raise money for the painting's restoration, then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the church decided that this incident was something to be capitalized on, and the lady should get royalties for that same as any "artist" would if their "art" was being used for profit.

It's an abomination or it's an asset. Can't have it both ways.

I get what you're saying, but I don't see where you're jumping from "it has value" to "SHE should get a cut". She is not an artist, the painting is not art anymore, and it's not hers. She is related to the proceeds in that she fucked up the painting but I'm not seeing where any sum of proceeds should go to her. It's true the money would not be there if not for her, but that alone doesn't entitle her to it.

You say that it's not art. On what basis do you claim that? Keep in mind that there is some art I find pretty awful out there, including another award winning work of art that defaces(ha!) a statue of Jesus in possibly a worse manner than this: the Piss Christ. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ] As for whether the "restoration" belongs to her or the church... well I'm not even going to try to figure out where physical property law ends and where intellectual property law begins in my own country, much less a foreign one. According to current interpretation of law, I own a bunch of plastic disks containing gaming content that publishers have "graciously" allowed me to use.

I say it's not art because, well, come the fuck on. OK, even if you want to go to "literally anything and everything is art" it doesn't really matter because this painting isn't being appreciated as art. It's a curiosity, like George Washington's wooden teeth only funnier.

The "restoration" belongs to the church, there is absolutely no two ways about it. Like I edited my earlier post to say, you can't draw a dong on the side of someone's house and say you own it. I realize you're just saying that copyright law is complicated, but issues like software ownership really have no bearing on this. Those are nuanced, tricky cases, this one isn't.

Did you look at the link I provided? Someone put a plastic statue of Jesus in a jar of his own piss, took a picture of it, and won an award. If that's art, then Sasquatch Jesus is gallery worthy at least. And again, I wouldn't count on the legal issue being as clear cut as you make out. We're talking two entirely different branches of law colliding with one party trying to make money off of the whole thing. It should be simple, but I doubt that it will be.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

The idea of claiming destruction as a form of creation is interesting (and a bit mind-boggling)

Oh no, its going all Brief Lives on us (if you get that reference, well done you)!

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

Wow. She does realize she destroyed a beautiful piece of art, right?
I'm not christian, but I have to say I enjoy art, and art like that is a piece of history, that she just kurfuckled all over.
She should be fined for what she did. Not rewarded.

Exactly, agreed fully. Anyway how does destroying art equal money?

 

[DugMachine]

Never heard of royalties for destroying art before.

 

[soren7550]

So, this woman commits breaking and entering (possibly, she could have just gone in during church hours and took the dang thing, so maybe not [unless she went into a part of the church she wasn't supposed to be in, which might then be breaking and entering]), theft, and vandalism, and then demands a cut of the money the church is getting? Well, she has a real low swinging pair, I'll give her that.

But factoring in what [user]Rauten[/user] said (Daria FTW by the way), that the church is making people pay to see it rather than the church getting donations, I still think she should get nothing. Well, maybe not nothing. She wants to lawyer up and demand a cut of the money? Church should slap her with the above mentioned charges (and any others she committed that I haven't included, far as I know she could have done more than that).

 

[Andy Chalk]

Please, next time you're going to report on something translated, GET A PROPER GODDAMN TRANSLATION, not Google Translation. She's not demanding her share of donations, she's asking for her share of the entry price.

Two things:

One - Don't yell at me, don't swear at me. It's rude.

Two - I've updated the post to reflect the fact that the church is actually charging for entry and not just accepting donations. Thanks for the clarification.

Oh, and if you're volunteering for future translation duties, let me know. I'll be more than happy to take advantage.

 

[Azuaron]

I guess my stance on this is a bit controversial, though I don't know why. Yes, she should get a cut. Why? Because the people running the church decided that it has value. If they had done nothing but condemn the act and try to raise money for the painting's restoration, then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the church decided that this incident was something to be capitalized on, and the lady should get royalties for that same as any "artist" would if their "art" was being used for profit.

It's an abomination or it's an asset. Can't have it both ways.

Technically, you can have it both ways, as someone on the facebook feed pointed out.

First, value the fresco she destroyed. Then she gets a cut, but her cut goes to pay for the fresco she destroyed. That should pretty much guarantee that she doesn't get a cent.

Please, next time you're going to report on something translated, GET A PROPER GODDAMN TRANSLATION, not Google Translation. She's not demanding her share of donations, she's asking for her share of the entry price.

Um... she's a vandal. I don't care how the church is using the painting, you do not get royalties for your vandalism. It's like robbing a convenience store, and then when you get caught you say, "But I get to keep the money, right?" Asset forfeiture.

 

[Kargathia]

Wow. She does realize she destroyed a beautiful piece of art, right?
I'm not christian, but I have to say I enjoy art, and art like that is a piece of history, that she just kurfuckled all over.
She should be fined for what she did. Not rewarded.

Exactly, agreed fully. Anyway how does destroying art equal money?

Quite simple really: people are willing to pay admission fee to go and watch the piece. Opinions on the quality of her "work" are quite irrelevant, as it can be objectively proven that her actions turned out to be a major source of income.

Her "destroying" the painting certainly equalled money. 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 she had been hired to refurbish the painting there would've been a contract, stipulating the reward for her work, and barring her from making any future claims to profits.

It comes down to whether work done without a legally binding contract is recognised under law as work done, including inferred intellectual property on her creation.

I wouldn't bet on her winning this. Likewise I also wouldn't bet on the church winning the case if it tried to sue her for damages.