3 ms·
> 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 ar
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoIt 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.