Woman Demands Royalties on Destroyed Jesus Fresco

[Nuke_em_05]

Less drastic; if I build a shed on your yard without your permission, do I now have ownership of your yard?

Counterpoint: If you build a shed on my yard, and then lot's of people come to see it, and I charge people for viewing your shed, would you not feel entitled to a portion of my proceeds. I am, in fact, making money off of your work, I did nothing to earn it.

Sure, she accomplished this through stupidity, not talent, but it was still her accomplishment. Without her the church wouldn't be making any of this extra money, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch for her to gain some of it.

No I wouldn't, because I didn't have the right to build the shed in the first place. If I wanted to profit from building a shed, I would build it legitimately.

People paying to see it doesn't change the fact that she had no legitimate claim to it in the first place.

She clearly didn't expect to get compensated for the "restoration" when she thought it would work. Even if she did expect that; she wasn't commissioned, so it wouldn't be owed to her.

You can't just do work for someone without a previous contract and expect to be paid for it.

If I came to your house, mowed your lawn, ran over your bushes, trimmed half off of a tree, and dug a hole; I wouldn't have a legitimate claim to have you pay me for it. Even if it became an oddity and people paid you to see it, I still wouldn't have a legitimate claim.

Edit: subject swap.

 

[Username Redacted]

Woman Demands Royalties on Destroyed Jesus Fresco

Common Sense on the other hand demands that idiotic woman be launched into the sun.

 

[CAPTCHA]

You can't demand payment for a service you were never commissioned to preform... unless you're the government.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

Please don't condescend, I am not a lawyer but neither are you. Bringing up copyright is not blowing my mind with complicated legal arguments. Though I have no legal training I have served as an attorney's personal assistant for countless hearings and depos. I have perused thousands of legal documents and been paid for it. "She vandalized someone's shit" will do just fine for our purposes here.

It's "work" in the way a robbed bank is "work", not in the way a mowed lawn is "work". I'm just trying to draw a line between this woman's "work" and the kind of thing people reasonably expect to get paid for. This was an act of vandalism, and calling it "work" implies legitimacy. Forgive me but it seems like that's what you're trying to do.

It doesn't matter if she increased the commercial value of the painting. Sense when are people entitled to things on the basis that they increased their commercial value? Can you imagine the chaos if things worked that way? If the owner of the new shopping mall sued everyone in the area for the increase in their land values, and things like that? I don't know anything about the Spanish legal system, but I can't imagine it has anything as crazy as that which would give this woman serious or even legitimate ground to sue. Or anything so crazy as to let her sue other people for what they do with their own things that she vandalized on the basis that she owns the copyright on their stuff that she vandalized. I think even entertaining the notion that this suit might not be laughed out of court is not giving the Spanish enough credit. But who knows, maybe they are batshit insane and love scamming people.

 

[Kargathia]

Please don't condescend, I am not a lawyer but neither are you. Bringing up copyright is not blowing my mind with complicated legal arguments. Though I have no legal training I have served as an attorney's personal assistant for countless hearings and depos. I have perused thousands of legal documents and been paid for it. "She vandalized someone's shit" will do just fine for our purposes here.

It's "work" in the way a robbed bank is "work", not in the way a mowed lawn is "work". I'm just trying to draw a line between this woman's "work" and the kind of thing people reasonably expect to get paid for. This was an act of vandalism, and calling it "work" implies legitimacy. Forgive me but it seems like that's what you're trying to do.

It doesn't matter if she increased the commercial value of the painting. Sense when are people entitled to things on the basis that they increased their commercial value? Can you imagine the chaos if things worked that way? If the owner of the new shopping mall sued everyone in the area for the increase in their land values, and things like that? I don't know anything about the Spanish legal system, but I can't imagine it has anything as crazy as that which would give this woman serious or even legitimate ground to sue. Or anything so crazy as to let her sue other people for what they do with their own things that she vandalized on the basis that she owns the copyright on their stuff that she vandalized. I think even entertaining the notion that this suit might not be laughed out of court is not giving the Spanish enough credit. But who knows, maybe they are batshit insane and love scamming people.

Any condescension is unintentional. The designation "work" in this case also is nothing more than a neutral way to express that nobody is denying that her actions led to the change in the painting.

Also, I'm not sure why people keep assuming that somehow I think she actually has a chance in court. Maybe I should start exaggerating wildly.

 

[pilouuuu]

Wow wow, people, most of you are waaaay misinformed about this. I live in Spain, in fact I don't live far away from Borja, and over here the perspective on this news is... well, different. So let me set a few points.

1. The original painting was not a priceless, valuable or fantastic work of art. It was a third rate academic painting from the late 19th century. In this country we have so many paintings like that... geez, I could go to the church in the corner of my street and find at least five or six pieces of art with more value than the original Ecce Homo. It was not very valuable, it was not done by a famous painter, it wasn't even that old: it was just another religious work made by the village's painter at the time. None of his works sell at Sothebys.

2. Cecilia did not steal the painting, as the Ecce Homo is a fresco, meaning: it was painted on a column. The only way you can remove that painting is by complicated chemistry works or by ninja-kicking the column out and running away with a ton-heavy piece of stone. What really happened is she entered the church and worked on the painting, and the priest in charge never stopped her. And he knew she was working on it.

3. This is the Church we are talking about. The Church in Spain. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, yes? These are not a bunch of peace-loving philantropists, the Church is an organ of power over here. They're rich, they have political influence and they don't pay taxes. This a humble 80 year old woman asking for her cut to a big organization.

And finally...

4. The new painting is faaaar more valuable than the original. From an obscure third-rate Jesus painting to an internationally famous pop symbol. It's ironic, it's unintentional, and it's a good reflection of the internet age. It's a masterpiece of pop art! Ugly? It's shit ugly! But it's relevant and far more important than any academic religious work you can find in any regular town church.

1. If I made a painting today and it was known only for me and it would be worth $1.000, I still wouldn't like an old lady coming and destroying my piece of art. It may not be the Mona Lisa, but it should be respected

3. Well, the Church may be powerful, but I understand that each church needs to manage its money, and they need money to repair what the old lady did to the painting

4. It is famous because it's ridiculous. It should be repaired ASAP and left as a meme just digitally.

 

[Furrama]

If you commission someone to fix something or make something that you own they don't get squat if it becomes profitable. They don't own it, the work was paid for. You were paid to do a job, if you want rights to the image you have to stipulate it in a contract. If someone fixed up a house and you got a picture in Better Homes and Gardens I'm pretty sure they get jack.

 

[InvisibleMan]

I disagree: Not only do they owe Cecilia some royalties, other churches and museums should hire her to work on other exhibits! I heard the Mona Lisa is looking a little gloomy these days...

 

[tmande2nd]

She sounds like that ***** who tried claiming the sun a few years ago.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Any condescension is unintentional. The designation "work" in this case also is nothing more than a neutral way to express that nobody is denying that her actions led to the change in the painting.

I would agree if you hadn't already used the term to draw a comparison to work done by commissioned artisans. The term can be neutral or it can be the basis for an argument, it can't be both. You could use words like "act" or "object" that don't have implications (which you then base an argument around).

Also, I'm not sure why people keep assuming that somehow I think she actually has a chance in court.

Maybe because you keep posting things that have no purpose but to imply that she does? If we're not talking about the courts then leave them out of it.

Maybe I should start exaggerating wildly.

Unintentional my ass lol. I'm saying the demand is nuts. Technically that is an exaggeration but are you really going to complain about that?

 

[Therumancer]

Hmmm, she DOES have a point. Her intention was to restore the piece, not to destroy it. In doing so she DID wind up creating something which has generated a decent amount of *ahem* appeal and also notoriety for both her and the church. The fact remains that the church is exploiting her "legend" for it's own gain, when she did try and help them out. To be fair I DO think they should be splitting the money here. Without her misguided attempts to restore the piece there would be nothing to see here, on the other hand it is their painting. It's a freak occurance, and both parties should be thanking god that good is coming from this and split the largess while it comes in.

I'll also be honest in saying that a church charging people to see a picture of Jesus under these circumstances just seems wrong. Especially given that it's stated "visits increased, but donations didn't" they should be happy by definition that people are interested enough to come to a place of faith, rather than trying to get money out of them.


I'd make a poor god, in a case like this I'd want to make an example about greed and faith that would be retold for generations.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Hmmm, she DOES have a point. Her intention was to restore the piece, not to destroy it. In doing so she DID wind up creating something which has generated a decent amount of *ahem* appeal and also notoriety for both her and the church. The fact remains that the church is exploiting her "legend" for it's own gain, when she did try and help them out. To be fair I DO think they should be splitting the money here. Without her misguided attempts to restore the piece there would be nothing to see here, on the other hand it is their painting. It's a freak occurance, and both parties should be thanking god that good is coming from this and split the largess while it comes in.

I'll also be honest in saying that a church charging people to see a picture of Jesus under these circumstances just seems wrong. Especially given that it's stated "visits increased, but donations didn't" they should be happy by definition that people are interested enough to come to a place of faith, rather than trying to get money out of them.


I'd make a poor god, in a case like this I'd want to make an example about greed and faith that would be retold for generations.

Even though I think the demand is a laugh, and a scam, I actually agree with you. At least to a degree. I'm a bundle of contradictions hehe.

I am not a legal professional but I have observed a lot of property cases. Trust me, they're all like this. No one is ever in the right. This is a pretty tame example, often the consequence is real harm.

EDIT: After thinking about it more, I'm inclined to be more sympathetic to the church. They are not charging for access to a picture of Jesus. They are charging for access to a hilarious joke. They are are profiting from a joke, not from religious conviction. That doesn't seem so bad, really.

 

[mooncalf]

Soooo the church countersues for the defacing of a priceless artifact and wins. I think that they managed to get a little "save-our-roof!" money out of this fresco fiasco (haha) is the best outcome of events altogether lame.

 

[Callate]

Okay, I should note that if what is reported here is correct ([link]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/9555526/Elderly-woman-who-botched-religious-fresco-demands-royalties.html[/link]) the woman in question would like profits from the fresco to go to muscular atrophy charities, which shines a slightly different light on things than just wanting a share of the "come gawk at the traffic accident I caused" royalties.

Still, my bottom-line response has to be: "Royalties? Lady, you should thank your lucky stars you aren't spending your remaining years in jail for vandalism."

 

[duchaked]

she should just be happy she's not getting punished...

 

[Evil Smurf]

As an art student I can say if you restore a painting you don't get profits. The person(s) who own the copyright do. The church does. Silly woman thinking she can ignore the rules

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Okay, I should note that if what is reported here is correct ([link]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/9555526/Elderly-woman-who-botched-religious-fresco-demands-royalties.html[/link]) the woman in question would like profits from the fresco to go to muscular atrophy charities, which shines a slightly different light on things than just wanting a share of the "come gawk at the traffic accident I caused" royalties.

Still, my bottom-line response has to be: "Royalties? Lady, you should thank your lucky stars you aren't spending your remaining years in jail for vandalism."

I'm kinda torn here, partly that she's seeing a chance to make a lil money for a charity that she's got an interest in, and partly that, despite it being a royal disaster, the 'renovation', it has in fact caused more interest in that church that a professional renovation would have, and the church has pulled in 2000 euros in a couple of weeks, that they'd not have seen without her 'work' on the painting.

I'm not saying she should get a big stash of cash, but I think 10% to her chosen charity wouldn't hurt.

 

[Pearwood]

Huh on one hand she's an idiot and I hope she fails but on the other she does have a point. The church isn't taking donations, they're actually charging a fee to see a work they have no claim to.