
The Battle for Picasso’s Multi-Billion-Dollar Empire - smollett
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/03/picasso-multi-billion-dollar-empire-battle
======
junto
This appears to be a fantastic example of why you should always make sure you
have a will in place.

~~~
danieltillett
Or why copyright should not be effectively forever. Not one new artwork is
produced by still allowing copyright on Picasso's artwork.

~~~
jrmurad
> Not one new artwork is produced by still allowing copyright on Picasso's
> artwork.

That's quite a claim. It's conceivable that someone today considering whether
to devote time to producing some work of art, rather than pursing another
endeavor, would make a different choice depending on how many years he might
expect that he and his heirs would have exclusive rights to it.

~~~
danieltillett
I have yet to meet an artist motivated by the existence of copyright 50 years
after they are dead. If anything knowing your heirs won't be able to live off
your copyright after you are dead should motivate an artist to produce more
today and pass on the money.

~~~
jrmurad
> I have yet to meet an artist

You went from an unprovable absolute claim to providing anecdotal evidence.
I'm not saying you're wrong... just that what you've said so far doesn't
convince me that "copyright should not be effectively forever" or that "50
years after they are dead" is "effectively forever".

This is by no means my area of expertise, but I'll give you an (probably
unoriginal) example. Let's say an artist creates something at age 30. He could
use some extra money at age 70. Wouldn't he be able to sell the rights for
more to someone who the law will allow to retain those rights for more years
after this artist has died?

~~~
danieltillett
It is not an unprovable absolute claim that Picasso has not produced any
artwork since he has died - it is a fact.

The only question is would having long copyright have motivated Picasso to
have created more art when he was alive. Given that the extensions to his
copyright occurred after he died we can be pretty certain that unless he was a
clairvoyant that the later retrospective changes to the copyright laws did not
motivate him to produce anything.

More fundamentally great artists create art because they have to - it is part
of their core. Art existed before copyright for exactly this reason.

~~~
jrecursive
what's discouraging is that some of you are essentially implying that picasso
should have sold himself as a service (make more art while alive) instead of
doing whatever a once-in-a-timeline artistic genius needs to do to create
priceless artifacts that, by the way, required the investment of his, and his
family member's, lives to realize. when his works are equatable with the
lyrics to "happy birthday" this might be worth revisiting; until then why
don't you buy some art? [http://fineartamerica.com/featured/copyright-john-
muellerlei...](http://fineartamerica.com/featured/copyright-john-
muellerleile.html)

~~~
danieltillett
Actually not at all. I believe from all I have read about Picasso he would
have been a productive artist even if no copyright existed - he was a great
artist and creating art was at his core.

I actually buy a lot of art - I have long since run out of wall space to hang
it all :) None of the artists I buy are producing art just for the money and
copyright plays no role in why they are an artist.

~~~
jrmurad
> I believe from all I have read about Picasso > None of the artists I buy are
> producing art just for the money and copyright plays no role

You seem to be presuming to know the motivations of every artist to have
existed based on your personal experience. Is it so inconceivable to you that
there may be someone who, let's say, is considering writing a book, wouldn't
at all be motivated by how much money he could earn in return for the
investment of his time? And take into account the fact that he could
potentially sell the rights for considerably more, the longer copyright
guarantees exclusive rights to the owner?

~~~
danieltillett
The value of lengthly copyright is basically zero to any rights buyer at the
time of production due to the very high discount rate used in the arts and
publishing industry. If it weren't zero then publishers would pay more to
young authors than old authors. If you can find one artist that has ever said
they create more because their heirs can live off the copyright 50 years after
they are dead please show us.

The only value to retrospective copyright extension is to give a windfall
profit to rights holders long after the artist is dead. It is outright theft
of our cultural heritage.

------
exodust
Reminds me of when Claude Picasso formally objected to an Australian pizza
shop called "Pizza Picasso", their tag line "Pizzas of Art".

Didn't go well for Claude. Pizza Picasso is still open for business here in
Sydney.

From article:

In September 2001, an intellectual property hearing in Canberra threw out
Claude's objection. In his summary, the hearing officer, Jock McDonagh,
included this memorable sentence: "I am not aware of any connection that Pablo
Picasso might have had with restaurants or pizzas in his lifetime. While the
mere mention of his name might immediately evoke images of his art and
artistic genius, it does not likewise summon up visions of pizza."

------
contingencies
Authorities should null and void the whole lot for public good.

------
twobuy
Marina doesn't come across in the best light.

