Interesting Legal Case
 

A watch company just bought a very expensive painting by a famous Danish artist with the intent of cutting it up into little pieces and inserting one tiny piece into each of their watches as a promotion (the watches cost about 1500$).

Sound like a familiar business model?

The Danish artist is fighting back, asking a Danish court for an injunction against the watch company.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-chic-watches

The legal argument actually isn't against them cutting up the painting per se, but rather about their use of his name and reputation in their advertising of the promotion. So it wouldn't have application in a case, say, against a card maker for shredding a Ruth bat or whatever, but I thought the parrallels were interesting nonetheless!

If the painting were displayed in a museum and they advertised it using his name and image without his permission, would he fight that? If not, then its really about him being mad that they are destroying his work.

I don't like destroying art but if someone buys it, they should be able to wipe their ass with it, if thats their choice.

I would disagree with that a bit. Its not solely that they are using his name in advertising, etc but that they seem to be representing by their use of it that the product itself (the watch) is something by him, which it isn’t. He concedes that whoever buys his work can destroy it if they want, but they can’t then go and make new products out of it which they sell by treading on his name.

Reminds me of the early 1990's Dad's Kids Corp lawsuit. The company cut up baseball cards to make 3D baseball cards.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...839-story.html