4 ms·
What if he really had painted it? What duty does he have to authenticate it?
by yubiox 10y ago
What if he really had painted it? What duty does he have to authenticate it?
- deadhand 10y agoThis is complicated because the transaction occurred in Canada but the case was heard in Chicago. But the argument is the same as forgery: the court may not be able to force Doig to authenticate it, but if the officer can prove Doig sold him the painting under the pretence of being his then Doig has sold him a forgery (selling a claimed Doig which truly is not) and is liable for it. It does not matter that the name Doig did not mean anything back then, because the forgery constitutes a loss of future earnings. Of course this is all hypothetical because Doig obviously did not paint this given what has come out in court.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y agoNo such duty has ever existed.
- gozur88 10y agoThat's what bothers me about this whole thing. I don't see how you can force an artist to affirmatively authenticate a painting no matter how much money is on the line unless he's somehow contractually obligated to do so.
- icebraining 10y agoI don't think they were claiming he has to affirmatively authenticate it; the issue at stake is that he actively denied making it.
- tedunangst 10y agoForget this case for a minute. Imagine Alice is selling Bob a house. Carol comes along and says, "Don't buy that house. It's infested with termites." This is likely to cause Bob to reconsider his offer, and Alice will be somewhat pissed. If Carol is correct, there's nothing Alice can do, but if Carol is lying, Alice will likely sue for unlawful tortuous interference with business or somesuch, whatever the legal words are. Now imagine that Alice is selling Bob a Monet painting. Carol says "That painting is fake." If Carol is some internet rando, probably doesn't matter. But if Carol is well known among Monet collectors, then her statement is likely to dissuade potential buyers. Alice will lose lots of money. If Carol is right, end of story, but if Carol is lying, perhaps to spite Alice, then hello lawsuit. Now, getting closer to the case at hand, imagine Alice is selling Bob a Peter Doig painting. Carol says "That painting is a fake." Same story, if Carol is lying and that depresses the market price, Alice has a case against Carol. In this particular case, it turns out that "Carol" is actually Peter Doig himself. But that's somewhat irrelevant to the legal framework. Actually, it just means he's considered an expert, and therefore his statements will affect the price. But being an expert doesn't make his statements true. Of course, with evidence presented, obvious he's not lying.
- RCortex 10y agoThanks for writing this up, helped me clarify different interpretations. From my point of view, whether or not the painting is Doig's affects his brand and the value of his name, which I do think he has the right to control.
- tedunangst 10y agoThere's a number of things one can say to manage reputation. "That's a terrible work." "I disown that." "Better off burned." "Not part of my catalog." But "I didn't paint that" is a statement of fact, it had better be true. One might consider an author who writes a book that flops. They can ask the publisher to stop printing it, but they can't demand people pretend that they didn't write it. However, there is the case where a movie director demands their name be taken off a bad movie. Fuzzy.