Artist says he will destroy $45 million worth of Rembrandt, Picasso and Warhol masterpieces with acid if Julian Assange dies in prisonfloofloof@lemmy.ca to News@lemmy.world – 305 points – 4 months agocbsnews.com121Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent commentIt depends on the country. In the US an artist has rights and deliberately destroying an artwork can get you sued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_ActRembrandt, Picasso, and Warhol do not have any rights anymore. They have all died.bravoAnd how would that compare, for you, to Julian Assange if he dies in prison ?If I had to choose one? I'd burn the art to save a life. If he died and the artwork was destroyed, I would think that was two tragedies.These artists are all dead.What's the reason for that? Tried googling but couldn't find anything on the reasoning for the law>right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation not exactly Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. The very next line after the one you you quoted. Also look at the case studies of times people have been sued successfully.
It depends on the country. In the US an artist has rights and deliberately destroying an artwork can get you sued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_ActRembrandt, Picasso, and Warhol do not have any rights anymore. They have all died.bravoAnd how would that compare, for you, to Julian Assange if he dies in prison ?If I had to choose one? I'd burn the art to save a life. If he died and the artwork was destroyed, I would think that was two tragedies.These artists are all dead.What's the reason for that? Tried googling but couldn't find anything on the reasoning for the law>right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation not exactly Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. The very next line after the one you you quoted. Also look at the case studies of times people have been sued successfully.
Rembrandt, Picasso, and Warhol do not have any rights anymore. They have all died.bravoAnd how would that compare, for you, to Julian Assange if he dies in prison ?If I had to choose one? I'd burn the art to save a life. If he died and the artwork was destroyed, I would think that was two tragedies.
And how would that compare, for you, to Julian Assange if he dies in prison ?If I had to choose one? I'd burn the art to save a life. If he died and the artwork was destroyed, I would think that was two tragedies.
If I had to choose one? I'd burn the art to save a life. If he died and the artwork was destroyed, I would think that was two tragedies.
>right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation not exactly Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. The very next line after the one you you quoted. Also look at the case studies of times people have been sued successfully.
Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. The very next line after the one you you quoted. Also look at the case studies of times people have been sued successfully.
It depends on the country. In the US an artist has rights and deliberately destroying an artwork can get you sued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act
Rembrandt, Picasso, and Warhol do not have any rights anymore. They have all died.
bravo
And how would that compare, for you, to Julian Assange if he dies in prison ?
If I had to choose one? I'd burn the art to save a life. If he died and the artwork was destroyed, I would think that was two tragedies.
These artists are all dead.
What's the reason for that? Tried googling but couldn't find anything on the reasoning for the law
>right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
not exactly
The very next line after the one you you quoted. Also look at the case studies of times people have been sued successfully.