3 ms·
Wow, regardless of the facts in this case, this highlights the possibility of a fascinating new type of "extortion" where one party can destroy an asset of anot
by qq66 10y ago
Wow, regardless of the facts in this case, this highlights the possibility of a fascinating new type of "extortion" where one party can destroy an asset of another party's by disavowing its authenticity, and may be able to extract payment under this threat.
- Gibbon1 10y ago> extract payment under this threat. Well that would be simple blackmail.
- mjrbrennan 10y agoNope, blackmail is when you demand money or other things in return for not divulging information about someone, whereas extortion is obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats, which is what is described here.
- Gibbon1 10y agoBlackmail/Extortion -> Tweedledee/Tweedledum
- Turing_Machine 10y agoPicasso was apparently known to do this, not as a form of extortion but simply because he could sometimes be a butthead. The story, as I remember reading it, was that a dealer approached Picasso with some drawings and asked him to authenticate them. "All fake.", he said. A friend who observed this had his doubts -- they looked genuine enough to him. He gave one of his own Picassos to the dealer and asked him to try that one. "Fake.", said Picasso. The friend said "But Pablo, I saw you draw that myself! You gave it to me with your own hands!". Picasso's reply: "Anyone can do a fake Picasso. I sometimes do them myself."
- sverige 10y agoOr it could simply be viewed as a form of "rights management," where even though you already paid for a work of art, now that some time has passed, you have to pay the creator again. Oh, and for any copies of it that you make, whether you sell them or not. No, that's crazy. No one would ever agree to such a scheme. [/s]
- Chris2048 10y agoAnd hence all art sales would come with the condition of a proof of authorship, as part of buyers due-diligence...