
Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work - lnguyen
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/aug/24/artist-peter-doig-landscape-painting-lawsuit
======
biztos
First, let me say that this looks like mistaken identity or worse; and that I
myself am an artist, and like most part-time artists I'm very sympathetic to
the interests of full-time artists.

However, this sentiment is unrealistically simple:

"I feel a living artist should be the one who gets to say yea or nay and not
be taken to task and forced to go back 40 years in time."

The way the art market works, attribution (and provenance) is a big part of
valuation. If you're a famous artist and I bought one of your paintings
without having you sign a bunch of paperwork -- and who does that with young
artists and amateur collectors? -- then you have the power to give or withhold
a lot of value.

I think the artist was in the right here. But you have to consider what his
statement would mean if he had in fact painted that picture. By denying its
authenticity he would be trying to destroy its value. You can choose what you
acknowledge, but as an artist you don't get to choose your own history
retroactively. Like anybody else you can tell your own story, but yours might
not be the only version.

Of course, this is why real collectors document provenance, sometimes
extensively; and why a lot of artists will by default include a "certificate
of authenticity" of some kind with every sale.

~~~
lallysingh
What's interesting here is how the art isn't valued on its own artistic
merits, but by its authorship. The artist's ability to control the value of a
work by testimony is weird, but only because the underlying work's value is
weird.

~~~
jeffwass
Many collectibles are like that.

Eg : Jimmy Hendrix's first guitar as a child would auction for quite a lot of
money. But the same model and condition guitar instead owned by some random
guy in Omaha would be worthless.

~~~
jjnoakes
I feel like this analogy isn't quite right.

I would compare the guitar to a paintbrush. Both are tools which, in the right
hands, can make beautiful things. So the value comes from the pairing of the
tool to the wielder, and I would expect an artist's paintbrush to be valuable
when tied to a specific artist just like Hendrix's guitar, and both mostly
worthless otherwise.

But the art itself should have value mostly independently, and I think the
analogue to that would be the music. If someone else produced exactly the same
music as Hendrix, I think it should be almost as valuable.

~~~
jeffwass
Would you pay the same amount to see a famous band play a concert vs a very
good cover band?

~~~
jjnoakes
If the concert was purely music and the very good cover band played the music
just as well, then sure.

Concerts are about more than just the music though. They are often about the
stage presence, visual affects, and the nostalgia, in addition to the music.

That being said, if this cover band had just as good a show as the original
band, and somehow the same amount of nostalgia (i.e. they've been covering the
original band's songs since the start and have always been just as good in
concert), then again I would say yes. I don't think that's likely though.

I mean, if you boil down what you are paying for to its essence, and provide
an alternative with exactly the same quality in that essence, then you should
be willing to pay the same. It's almost by-definition.

------
jeandejean
And just when will court punish people wrongly suing artists that denies you
make money with counterfeits ? Even worse is the greediness of these art
dealers that just want to make money whatever the cost to artists. Art market
is sick.

~~~
Normal_gaussian
The third to last paragraph

> The artist’s lawyers said they identified the real Pete Doige, whose records
> matched Fletcher’s description. Doige died in 2012, but his sister, Marilyn
> Doige Bovard, testified at the trial that the work was created by her late
> brother.

Suggests that there was reason for the corrections officer to believe he had a
genuine painting, and not a counterfeit. However as this made it to court it
may be that the plaintiffs were in a little too deep.

~~~
TylerE
Note spellings: Peter Doig vs Pete Doige.

~~~
Normal_gaussian
Yep. Took me a while to find a copy of the signature [0]. I would happily
follow the argument that the e character is embellishment from the end of the
g. However all doubt is removed when presented with Doige's signature [1]. For
comparison I also looked up Doig's signature [2], of course this could never
be evidence that his signature at 16 wasn't the one presented.

[0]
[http://i.cbc.ca/1.3675486.1468348236!/cpImage/httpImage/imag...](http://i.cbc.ca/1.3675486.1468348236!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/painting-
dispute-20160710.jpg)

[1]
[http://liverampup.com/uploads/images/362E348700000578-0-imag...](http://liverampup.com/uploads/images/362E348700000578-0-image-m-36_1468293263977.jpg)

[2]
[https://www.wengcontemporary.com/cdn/uploads/default_site/ar...](https://www.wengcontemporary.com/cdn/uploads/default_site/artwork/Weng_Contemporary_Doig_Fisherman_Signature_Shot.jpg)

------
yubiox
What if he really had painted it? What duty does he have to authenticate it?

~~~
tedunangst
Forget 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
Thanks 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
There'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.

------
nathan_f77
I wonder if the painting will actually be worth something now that it's been
all over the media.

~~~
totalcrepe
To be safe, I think the picture should be awarded to Peter Doig. Perhaps on
the grounds that the owner admits it confusable with his brand..

~~~
beambot
So if I make art "in the style of artist <x>", then all my work belongs to
that artist?

(I'm not talking about blatant copies.)

~~~
totalcrepe
Normally no, but here the "owner" was claiming it is the artist's work, not a
facsimile or reproduction. So this is an exact case of the normally
theoretical ill that trademark and brand related law is supposed to protect
against: something that is honestly confused with the work of a manufacturer
with a substantial cost to that manufacturer.

Try doing this at the border with a "rolix" and that offended manufacturer has
rights to protect their interests not a responsibility to show up to convince
customs that your rolix is a real rolex from back when they had trouble
spelling. So I'd say this is an example of different justice for different
relative social status.

------
jaynos
I wonder what the auction price will be now that the notoriety of the trial is
attached to the work.

~~~
binarymax
A great observation and question. This is one of those things about art that
really intrigues me - it gets to the heart of the big questions on human
nature, culture, and economics. It's delightfully absurd.

------
kevinastone
The facts of the case (as summarized in the article) makes this seem like an
obvious case of mistaken identity. Not sure what's noteworthy here.

~~~
surge
Mostly that an artist had to pay legal fees to defend himself because he told
the truth and someone didn't like it. The ridiculous litigiousness of the
whole thing is disconcerting. The last name wasn't even spelled correctly, if
an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.

~~~
aab0
Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. I don't
remember the stuff about the other Doig's sister, and the prison records had
not yet surfaced (the prison system had been unable to find them at the time).

~~~
mhurron
> Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage.

Which actually should never have mattered, because the trial never should have
happened. Doig said, no, that is not my painting. That should have been the
end of it, but the other party didn't like that and tried to get the court to
say otherwise because they thought they had basically won the lottery.

~~~
ghaff
One can imagine scenarios where an artist disclaims that they created
something out of spite (with family or whatever) and that disclaiming greatly
decreases the value of some sold item. If that painting or whatever was fairly
obviously the artist's work, would you still feel the same?

This case seems odd based on the news coverage though (based on the coverage
in respectable publications like The New York Times and Guardian). I would
have, perhaps naively, assumed that the plaintiffs would have been expected to
have at least some evidence that Doig (with a different spelling) was the
artist in question before it went to trial. Which doesn't seem to have been
the case.

Of course, this was a civil suit and the reality is that you can sue anyone
for just about any reason. For better or worse.

~~~
ChoHag
> an artist disclaims that they created something ... disclaiming greatly
> decreases the value of some sold item

If this concerns you, you should not be as dependent on items whose value
hangs so tightly on the word of a disinterested (or worse, interested) party.

------
pfarnsworth
The idea that this had to be argued in a court of law is absolutely
ridiculous.

~~~
sverige
That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a
negative in a court of law, and usually judges stop that crap very early in a
case. Amazed it took this long.

~~~
dragonwriter
> That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a
> negative in a court of law

Not really. All that it means to "prove a negative" in this kind of a case (a
civil case where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence") is that you
have to bring sufficient evidence that the trier of fact (jury or judge, as
the case may be) finds that the claims that the other party is making are less
likely true than the alternative claims that you are making. It isn't "proof"
to a high degree of certainty.

~~~
sverige
True, but usually the onus is on plaintiff to demonstrate the affirmative. The
prison guard's story was very weak in demonstrating that "famous artist" Peter
Doig was the same as "unknown prison artist" Pete Doige, especially given that
Peter Doig had no incentive for disavowing a work he had already sold.
"Embarrassment" caused by imprisonment or drug use are hardly motivators for
artists. Some use those kinds of things as career enhancers.

~~~
dragonwriter
> True, but usually the onus is on plaintiff to demonstrate the affirmative.

As it was here. The thing is _any_ evidence (however weak) that a claim is
true, if uncountered, can suffice for proof _by a preponderance of the
evidence_ for the claim. So, it doesn't take _strong_ evidence to create some
burden for the defense to disprove the plaintiffs claim, but the degree of
proof necessary is set by the strength of the plaintiff's evidence, since the
standard is preponderance of the evidence.

------
sverige
I've been thinking about this since the first article was posted a while back.
Something really bothered me about this case, and I finally put my finger on
it. I realize this thread may not be read since it has long fallen off the
front page, but that's ok.

The problem is that plaintiff's case is logically flawed at its very core. The
argument is that Doig cost him $10 million by refusing to authenticate the
painting.

Why is that authentication worth anything? Because Doig is in a position to
confirm that it is part of his oeuvre. And any such authentication, if
provided, assumes that Doig is telling the truth.

But Doig refused to authenticate the painting. Now plaintiff says he's a liar.

So, if he's a liar, his authentication is worthless.

If he's telling the truth, the painting is not by him.

In other words, plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. There's no need to even gather further evidence. It's disturbing that
it took a federal judge three years to decide this; but then again, they are
political appointees, so the standard isn't really whether they are logical
thinkers.

------
zentiggr
I can't imagine what grounds the plaintiffs would have to appeal... if he
didn't start painting until after the claimed meeting, Q.E.D., suit dismissed,
money grubbing plaintiffs pay the defense's costs.

(I know it doesn't work that way, Doig is out of pocket to defend himself and
that's the shitty way it turns out.)

------
samirillian
Art's a lot like real estate: an investment with a view. Sadly, the integrity
of the view cannot be tolerated to outweigh the integrity of the market.

The really strange thing to me was how little resemblance the painting bore to
Doig's work. The former looks like a bad Dali.

------
noobermin
Could such a case be made where the work is a piece of code? I'm not sure why
someone would sue someone for claiming they are _not_ the author. May be for a
coder to take responsibility for bad code?

At times like this I am happy to have a rare (non-English) last name.

------
Ericson2314
I kinda want that Pete Doige painting now...

------
kristianp
Amazing that there is no mention of what the painting looks like compared to
Doig's paintings. Surely the style would be different?

------
cloudjacker
Verisart purports to prevent this with blockchain technology, somehow, take
their word for it, handwave, jk

I'm not sure what they do actually.

------
JustSomeNobody
Why these things have to take 3 years is sad. Nobody should have to go through
3 years of this crap.

