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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

That would not surprise me. It's too bad that the weathy buy art. 
They have such poor taste in it and only manage to drive up the 
prices.

Unfortunatly, I just don't see that the law has a remedy for that sort 
of thing.If they really really want something their way then 
commission an artwork from some hack who will do it. The solution 
lies in having public art museums and I'm not adverse to the private 
art collections using their snob-snub on people of that ilk. ("A 
Renoir is a Renoir. You really can't go changing the color of that 
little girl's dress to match your living room decor. It simply isn't 
done")

Also,  A private owner can always simply destroy the evidence if 
they face procecution under such a law 


I was raised in Akron in the 60s and 70s and I remember the 
incident but not the exact time frame. If more interesting you mean 
sadder more poignent, I would agree. (I meant the Museum. When 
I was growing up it was called the Art Institute...)

To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway 
Date sent:      	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 20:07:22 -0500
From:           	"Peter D. Junger" <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.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