Discuss: Painting over a thrift store painting

bsherwin: I just read another story about a an expensive work of art purchased at a Goodwill location for a few dollars. The artist who purchased the painting had planned to paint over it -- but her partner recognized the work. The $5 painting ended up being worth $20,0000. Needless to say, the artist decided not to paint over the artwork. There is another side to stories like this... and the media rarely mentions it. People forget that artists have specific rights concerning their artwork... even after their artwork leaves the studio.

I realize that a lot of artists hunt for cheap canvas at thrift stores in order to 'recycle' the painting. They don't stop to think if their action is unethical or not. That said, I have a feeling that most don't realize that the creator of the painting -- especially if he or she is still alive -- can take legal action if he or she discovers that someone has destroyed or altered his or her artwork. It does not matter if the artwork itself is famous or not... it does not matter if the artwork was found in a thrift store.

When artwork is sold the artist still has rights to the work itself unless there is a contract that states otherwise. He or she has the right to defend the integrity of the artwork -- as well as his or her intention for the artwork -- legally. Those rights don't change if the artwork changes hands... even if it is donated to a thrift store.

I will probably write about this issue at length for FineArtViews. For now.... I want to know what you think about painting over artwork created by another artist. Do you feel that it is unethical? Should thrift stores make it clear that the artist may still hold rights to the artwork on display? Do you feel that art is 'fair game' (the buyer can do whatever he or she wishes to do with it) if it ends up at a thrift store? What would you do if you discovered that one of your artworks ended up at a thrift store -- and from there, 'erased' or altered? What if your artwork ended up exhibited after minor changes? If you decided to take action... who would you hold responsible -- the thrift store or the buyer?

	Sean McCann via faso.com	10 months ago
	Brian, Unfortunately Goya can't do very much about his etchings that were painted over or desecrated by The Chapman brothers in the name of art!

	Brian Sherwin via faso.com	10 months ago
	Sean -- What about living artist though? They can take legal action. Do you agree with that right? Or should art be 'fair game' once sold, stolen, lost, what have you?

	Sean McCann via faso.com	10 months ago
	Brian, I think that legal action is fair enough because the artist still owns the copyright.It is good that the artists rights can be legally defended and that the artist still has the rights to the work itself. In court I suspect that proving a breach of contract would be very difficult. If a work was mislaid or stolen, how easy would it really be to claim the owner's negligence? If there are conditions in which the work is to be seen, at the point of sale would the artist not be obliged to state conditions? If one condition is that you only wish the work to be seen on a white wall, and you later found it was being shown against a bright red wall, I doubt if in reality there is much you could do about it.You say "he or she has the right to defend the integrity of the artwork -- as well as his or her intention for the artwork -- legally". Is this a universal right and would it hold up in most countries? Are there any known cases where an artist has sued the owner of a work, because they were unhappy with the way the work was treated?

	Chaz via faso.com	10 months ago
	This would fall under VARA if the art is created for exhibition. Exhibition means that the art was created for the purpose of being displayed. "VARA provides its protection only to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, still photographic images produced for exhibition only, and existing in single copies or in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies, signed and numbered by the artist. The requirements for protection do not implicate aesthetic taste or value." The original artwork is a single copy. Here is some info about it http://www.ivanhoffman.com/vara.html

	Chaz via faso.com	10 months ago
	Sean, a mural artist won $1.1 million against the U.S. government with VARA. Brian, I'm glad that we have VARA. Donating the art to a thrift store might be considered "gross negligence" if the art is harmed.

	Jackie via faso.com	10 months ago
	That's very interesting Chad, thank you for the link. When it mentions photographs 'for exhibition purposes only' what exactly does that mean? Is it trying to exclude photo-journalism? Does it mean art photography? In other words, photographs that are taken specifically as art as opposed to for a magazine or book? What if the photograph has been published on the internet? Sorry for so many questions! Oh, and the 200 edition - does this mean that artists who sell open editions aren't protected?

	Brian Sherwin via faso.com	10 months ago
	Sean -- There is a BIG difference between where the artwork is displayed and harming the artwork. Chaz mentioned VARA... which does cover some of these issues. VARA is the US response to Berne. So yes... many countries do offer artists a way to respond legally to damaged or altered work. Chaz -- Technically a thrift store like Goodwill claims ownership if the donation is accepted and offered for sale. The new owner -- in this case Goodwill -- would be the likely target IF the art is harmed while on display. Once the artwork is purchased the buyer is the new owner. If the buyer alters the work -- or destroys it -- he or she would be the likely target. Jackie -- I'm fairly certain that photo-journalism is not protected by VARA. At the same time... many photo-journalists do view their work as art. Good question. I'll see if one of my art law contacts can shed some light.

	Sean McCann via faso.com	10 months ago
	Brian,I am glad that there is protection for the artist if a work is harmed or destroyed. Are you saying that the integrity of the artwork as well as the intention for the artwork is only an issue if it is altered or harmed physically? If for example I was a conceptual art,context of a work might be an integral part of the work, in which case if it is taken out of the context and displayed in an unsuitable manner, I could argue that the the integrity of the artwork work has been changed or damaged.

	Brian Sherwin via faso.com	10 months ago
	Sean -- As for location (assuming you had a contract that involved a specific location), my understanding is that you would not be able to do anything unless the artwork was damaged in the process of being moved. I don't think there is much you can do if the artwork can theoretically be displayed again intact -- unless you have a contract that states otherwise. The work has to be stored properly as well. Technically the owner would have to do a bit more than just throw the artwork in a garage. Copyright and VARA work hand-in-hand. If something can be copyrighted fine art-wise... it will likely be protected by VARA as well. There are other laws that offer protection as well. An artist from NYC told me that NY has state laws that further protect artwork. I can't verify that without doing a little research. I'll reach out to some legal eagles to nab their take on the issue.

	Sean McCann via faso.com	10 months ago
	Brian, Thanks for the info. I didn't realise that the artist had this much protection. This is very good for the artist.

	Brian Sherwin via faso.com	10 months ago
	Sean -- I'm glad Chaz mentioned VARA. A lot of artists don't realize that VARA exists. I imagine it can be extremely helpful in some situations.