Re: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway

["Peter D. Junger" <junger(at)samsara.law.cwru.edu>]

"Michael A Rolenz" writes:

: While I don't believe that anything can be gained by the destruction of 
: art, unique works of art also tend to have large prices so unless someone 
: just decided to buy art and deface it, it would not be much of an issue. 
: Now...does this art apply to any of the artwork that the majority of 
: artists create? I doubt it. The matter would be too small for anyone to 
: notice much less the courts. But look also at the requirement limited to a 
: print run of 200. Defacing print #200 still leaves 199 prints around. 
: While well intentioned, I'm skeptical of the enforcement, purpose, of this 
: law.)

The problem is that there are those among the wealthy who would have
great works of art recolorized to match the color of their eyes, or of
their wall paper.

: (BTW- The Cleveland Art Institiute had one of three casting of Rodin's THe 
: Thinker. In the 70s someone exploded a bomb at its base which blew open 
: and deformed themetal. I'm not really certain how this law would prevent 
: or even punish the perpertrator)

It was at the Cleveland Museum of Art and the exploded casting is still
there in front of the Museum.  And it happened, I believe, in 1967, but
I am not sure of that.  Considering that other casts exist, I suggest
that the exploded cast is now a more interesting work.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
        NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists