Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)
10 comments
·April 28, 2025colechristensen
>Why This Movie Perfectly Re-Created a Picasso, Destroyed It, and Mailed the Evidence to Picasso’s Estate
Pablo Picasso died more than fifty years ago at the age on 91. Four of his children are dead and the one remaining alive is 76. It's really stupid that people have to go all of this trouble for work done so long ago. Intellectual property laws should not protect your work for the benefit of your middle-aged grandchildren.
A difficult to notice watermark that prevents it being sold fraudulently as real should be more than enough.
dfxm12
That wasn't the point.
It seems like the the people making the film were happy to work with the foundation, for whom this was their first such request.
Even if they had an adversarial posture towards the foundation, the alternative would probably involve a court of law sorting this out, with all the costs of time and money that entails. Even if they were certain they were in their rights to just add a watermark, any risk that could potentially render the film unreleasable for an any amount of time would be unacceptable.
chrismcb
I personally think copyright tend are to long. But at the moment it is essentially death plus 70 years, which means Picasso's work will enjoy another 17 years of protection, unless they were works for hire. As far as a watermark I'm guessing that works be between the new artist and the original artist/estate
ryandrake
But, as the argument goes, nobody would ever make art without the guarantee of royalties going to the artist's next 3 or 4 generations of kin. They would just... never take up painting, composing, acting, and so on.
felbane
I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic.
Plenty of people make art to express themselves, not for the potential profit of it.
ameliaquining
(2014)
null
https://archive.ph/CxTmk