7 ms·

The facts of the case (as summarized in the article) makes this seem like an obvious case of mistaken identity. Not sure what's noteworthy here.

surge 10y ago
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.
- aab0 10y ago
  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).
  - mhurron 10y ago
    > 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.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      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.
      - mhurron 10y ago
        One of the benefits of being a living artist is the ability to disavow anything as their work.
      - ChoHag 10y ago
        > an artist disclaims that they created something ... disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item If this concerns you, you should not be as dependent on items whose value hangs so tightly on the word of a disinterested (or worse, interested) party.
  - 33degrees 10y ago
    Doige's sister was mentioned in the New York Time's article from July, so that part isn't new.
- astrodust 10y ago
  He wasn't in prison, the names are different, and he's adamantly denying creating it in the first place. That he got dragged into court and had to pay to prove he didn't create something is absurd. This could happen to anyone who creates things.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The prison part seems like it would be particularly easy to verify, even if there was a man there who had a very similar name.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      It was easily verified but the prosecution insisted he may have changed his name or the prison recorded it wrong for reasons that were never quite explained. Their arguments were so detached from reality they may as well have been trying to prove that Elvis made the painting.
- failthfully 10y ago
  > 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. All of it perfectly legal.
  - haldean 10y ago
    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.
    - failthfully 10y ago
      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.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > 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.

surge 10y ago

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.

aab0 10y ago
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).
- mhurron 10y ago
  > 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.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    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.
    - mhurron 10y ago
      One of the benefits of being a living artist is the ability to disavow anything as their work.
    - ChoHag 10y ago
      > an artist disclaims that they created something ... disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item If this concerns you, you should not be as dependent on items whose value hangs so tightly on the word of a disinterested (or worse, interested) party.
- 33degrees 10y ago
  Doige's sister was mentioned in the New York Time's article from July, so that part isn't new.
astrodust 10y ago
He wasn't in prison, the names are different, and he's adamantly denying creating it in the first place. That he got dragged into court and had to pay to prove he didn't create something is absurd. This could happen to anyone who creates things.
- gozur88 10y ago
  The prison part seems like it would be particularly easy to verify, even if there was a man there who had a very similar name.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    It was easily verified but the prosecution insisted he may have changed his name or the prison recorded it wrong for reasons that were never quite explained. Their arguments were so detached from reality they may as well have been trying to prove that Elvis made the painting.
failthfully 10y ago
> 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. All of it perfectly legal.
- haldean 10y ago
  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.
  - failthfully 10y ago
    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.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > 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.