Fresco "restorer" wants a royalty from the church

Discuss

18 Responses to “Fresco "restorer" wants a royalty from the church”

  1. Gyrofrog says:

    You beat me to the punch; it’s already one of the tags.

  2. shutz says:

    I would agree to a single payment of “royalties”.  Once she agrees,
    I would calculate a reasonable amount of “royalties”, then calculate a reasonable amount owed for “damage to a priceless artifact” and “professional restoration work” (as opposed to “amateur restoration work”) and then make sure that the second amount is just slightly higher than the first amount, so that she owes the owners of the painting money.

    Just make sure that initial agreement contains a clause that means she can’t sue the church afterwards.

    • Deidzoeb says:

      I agree, except for the “make sure that the second amount is just slightly higher than the first amount.” No reason for the church to be that generous.

      … Except because it’s ostensibly a religion of “forgiveness,” but your mileage may vary widely on that. The God of love and peace and forgiveness and eternal suffering, creator of the system of damnation.

    • Boundegar says:

      If the artwork is priceless, then the damage is, by definition, incalculable.

  3. mccrum says:

    The real question starts to become if it was an authorized restoration or just plain old graffiti…

  4. kartwaffles says:

    If churches are subject to royalties, why aren’t they subject to taxes?

  5. Jim Smith says:

    Behind every amateur restorer stands a copyright troll.  I bet she didn’t come up with the idea herself.

  6. abe lugo says:

    send the lady to puppy lake and have the art removed and restored

  7. technogeekagain says:

    Even at the most generous view: She donated her work. It may be her copyright, but the actual artwork belongs to the church and she has absolutely no claim against donations they receive from people coming to see it.

    If someone _republished_ it — eg if someone created a T-shirt featuring this horror — she might be able to lodge a copyright complaint against then. Though note that many/most of the images which have appeared in news stories would be considered “fair use”.

    I can’t blame her for trying to find a formulation in which she is an artist rather than an idiot, but this isn’t it.

  8. Bill Grimm says:

    I think Jesus would laugh his ass off if he saw what she did to that fresco. I think everyone needs to lighten up.

  9. liquidstar says:

     The “amateur restorer” (think that might actually be overstating the case) seems much less the hapless “Mrs. Bean” and more Black Adder now.

  10. stuck411 says:

    Curious. If the image of the ‘beast’ Jesus were to appear on a potato chip or window or toast by way of a miracle, would she hold copyright to that too?

  11. humanresource says:

    Of course she wants to be paid. The fresco probably looks great to her.

  12. Brainspore says:

    Well there goes the “she was a nutty lady who had good intentions” theory.

  13. Efemmeral says:

    This looks like a case for Ken@Popehat!  (superman music) He’d straighten out this mess in a fast hurry.

Leave a Reply