6 ms·

I'm very confused.. let's say Doig did paint this, and he's denying it.. what kind of damages does he owe? Is he supposed to owe the difference in sale price b

I'm very confused.. let's say Doig did paint this, and he's denying it.. what kind of damages does he owe? Is he supposed to owe the difference in sale price between if he painted it, and if he didn't? Is he just supposed to acknowledge it publicly? If so, is that really the best use of the courts? Force someone to admit something that, in the end, has no bearing in the real world?

vinceguidry 10y ago
I imagine the court would simply issue an injunction forbidding him from disavowing authorship of the painting. No monetary reparations needed.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  Can a court really forbid you from doing such a thing? What if someone wants to create art but not be forced to put their name on it afterwards. This is just impossible?
  - incompatible 10y ago
    I suspect that you can create art and release it anonymously, and nobody can force you to say you painted it. That would be covered in the US under freedom of speech, I think. On the other hand, claiming that you painted something that you didn't, or didn't paint something that you did, may be fraudulent?
    - incompatible 10y ago
      Perhaps artists will be advised in future to refuse to deny or confirm that they painted anything, to avoid such lawsuits.
    - CoryG89 10y ago
      Right? I could see being sued for claiming you painted something that you didn't. I think that is pretty standard faire. But the reverse? That sounds crazy to me. At any rate, my freedom of speech definitely covers both cases.
      - bitJericho 10y ago
        IANAL. You can surely be compelled to tell the truth. I can't imagine how the court could compel somebody to admit or deny this type of fact though. But not speaking at all is different from lying. If you do not follow the courts order, it could be charge of civil contempt, which could be jail time until you promise to no longer ignore the courts orders and/or could include fines.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    A judge has leeway to order you to do pretty much anything. You can appeal such judgments, but you can't stop him from issuing one. This sort of thing is called prior restraint, and is mostly illegal, but that doesn't stop judges from doing it all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint Popehat has discussed prior restraint many times. Sometimes judges get away with it, sometimes they don't, and often Popehat themselves has to make the difference. https://popehat.com/ https://popehat.com/
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
From TFA, the plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in damages, plus the painting's authenticity confirmed.
- kowdermeister 10y ago
  That doesn't make sense. Either he seeks $5M in damages OR gets the authenticity confirmed. If the name is cleared on the painting, the value of the artwork is not decreased.
  - laurencei 10y ago
    But lets say the "authenticity" is "confirmed" by the courts. Is it? I mean, if you are a true arts collector, there will always be a taint on this painting now. Everyone will know the story, and there would always be a sense it could be a fake...
    - ics 10y ago
      If you have the cash, the story may be the most interesting part. Art collecting is at least a tiny bit more complex than just a race to own the most X by Y.
    - SixSigma 10y ago
      Except it will become "Doig's disavowed painting". Heck, even if the guy loses it is now a famous painting, that may add to its value alone. If Doig wins he could buy it, paint ON it and sell it, that would rub it in!
  - asib 10y ago
    > His suit contends that Mr. Doig is either confused or lying and that his denials blew up a plan to sell the work for millions of dollars. Presumably the damages are being sought not for affecting the value of the painting, but for ruining the sale. I don't see why the guy deserves damages on the order of the value of the painting though - if it's a true Doig, he can still sell the painting for the same amount (probably more given the spectacle around it), and the only loss would be the time wasted in setting up the sale.
tedunangst 10y ago
Tortious interference I would guess. Plaintiff wants to sell a "Doig painting", but defendant is preventing the sale by making a "false claim". So basically he'd owe damages for the lost sale proceeds.
- 746F7475 10y ago
  This is so ass backwards. With this one could try to sell anything fake as part of someones works and if pointed to be wrong just sue for damages. Imo this should be treated as forgery and the guy selling the painting should be punished.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    Once you've won a court case proving it isn't a forgery
visarga 10y ago
> Is he supposed to owe the difference in sale price between if he painted it, and if he didn't? Damages should be limited to the sale price, not fluctuating market value. What if a painting loses its value because the author does something disgraceful - can the buyer sue the painter for damages? Should all painters be careful about their public standing or anything they do that might affect the market valuation of their work, on threat of lawsuit from their buyers? The buyer should have exercised due diligence and obtained proof of authorship 40 years ago. He only bought the painting itself, with no paperwork. So that's what he has now, just a painting, with no proof. He has exactly what he paid for.

vinceguidry 10y ago

I imagine the court would simply issue an injunction forbidding him from disavowing authorship of the painting. No monetary reparations needed.

CoryG89 10y ago
Can a court really forbid you from doing such a thing? What if someone wants to create art but not be forced to put their name on it afterwards. This is just impossible?
- incompatible 10y ago
  I suspect that you can create art and release it anonymously, and nobody can force you to say you painted it. That would be covered in the US under freedom of speech, I think. On the other hand, claiming that you painted something that you didn't, or didn't paint something that you did, may be fraudulent?
  - incompatible 10y ago
    Perhaps artists will be advised in future to refuse to deny or confirm that they painted anything, to avoid such lawsuits.
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    Right? I could see being sued for claiming you painted something that you didn't. I think that is pretty standard faire. But the reverse? That sounds crazy to me. At any rate, my freedom of speech definitely covers both cases.
    - bitJericho 10y ago
      IANAL. You can surely be compelled to tell the truth. I can't imagine how the court could compel somebody to admit or deny this type of fact though. But not speaking at all is different from lying. If you do not follow the courts order, it could be charge of civil contempt, which could be jail time until you promise to no longer ignore the courts orders and/or could include fines.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  A judge has leeway to order you to do pretty much anything. You can appeal such judgments, but you can't stop him from issuing one. This sort of thing is called prior restraint, and is mostly illegal, but that doesn't stop judges from doing it all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint Popehat has discussed prior restraint many times. Sometimes judges get away with it, sometimes they don't, and often Popehat themselves has to make the difference. https://popehat.com/ https://popehat.com/

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

From TFA, the plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in damages, plus the painting's authenticity confirmed.

kowdermeister 10y ago
That doesn't make sense. Either he seeks $5M in damages OR gets the authenticity confirmed. If the name is cleared on the painting, the value of the artwork is not decreased.
- laurencei 10y ago
  But lets say the "authenticity" is "confirmed" by the courts. Is it? I mean, if you are a true arts collector, there will always be a taint on this painting now. Everyone will know the story, and there would always be a sense it could be a fake...
  - ics 10y ago
    If you have the cash, the story may be the most interesting part. Art collecting is at least a tiny bit more complex than just a race to own the most X by Y.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    Except it will become "Doig's disavowed painting". Heck, even if the guy loses it is now a famous painting, that may add to its value alone. If Doig wins he could buy it, paint ON it and sell it, that would rub it in!
- asib 10y ago
  > His suit contends that Mr. Doig is either confused or lying and that his denials blew up a plan to sell the work for millions of dollars. Presumably the damages are being sought not for affecting the value of the painting, but for ruining the sale. I don't see why the guy deserves damages on the order of the value of the painting though - if it's a true Doig, he can still sell the painting for the same amount (probably more given the spectacle around it), and the only loss would be the time wasted in setting up the sale.

tedunangst 10y ago

Tortious interference I would guess. Plaintiff wants to sell a "Doig painting", but defendant is preventing the sale by making a "false claim". So basically he'd owe damages for the lost sale proceeds.

746F7475 10y ago
This is so ass backwards. With this one could try to sell anything fake as part of someones works and if pointed to be wrong just sue for damages. Imo this should be treated as forgery and the guy selling the painting should be punished.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  Once you've won a court case proving it isn't a forgery

visarga 10y ago

> Is he supposed to owe the difference in sale price between if he painted it, and if he didn't? Damages should be limited to the sale price, not fluctuating market value. What if a painting loses its value because the author does something disgraceful - can the buyer sue the painter for damages? Should all painters be careful about their public standing or anything they do that might affect the market valuation of their work, on threat of lawsuit from their buyers? The buyer should have exercised due diligence and obtained proof of authorship 40 years ago. He only bought the painting itself, with no paperwork. So that's what he has now, just a painting, with no proof. He has exactly what he paid for.