NeoGAF

speculawyer · 04:50 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...013333054.html

Quote:

A Spanish woman who made headlines worldwide for her botched attempt to restore a 20th-century painting of Jesus Christ says she has hired lawyers and wants royalties from the fees church owners are charging visitors, according to the daily Spanish-language newspaper El Correo.

The local artist, 80-year-old Cecilia Gimenez, initially defended her volunteer work saying she was restoring the decaying "Ecce Homo" ("Behold the Man") portrait because no one else would. The before and after pictures went viral across the globe and tourists began arriving in droves -- but very few were leaving donations according to Ars Technica. The sanctuary's owners, the Santi Spiritus Hospital Foundation, reportedly made $2,600 in four days from visitors wanting to see "Ecce Mono," or "Behold the Monkey" as it's now called, Ars Technica reported.

Nice

Quote:

The church has hired lawyers of its own to protect its revenue, Ars Technica said, "Luckily, though, Gimenez is not charging the millions of Internet users who have shared and spoofed her painting all over the world with copyright abuse."

Lady, don't you even THINK about coming after GAF's resident GIF genius, SunhiLegend.
His work on this topic:

OttomanScribe · (09-20-2012, 03:00 AM)

Nice. All power to her I say.

Admittedly because I reckon that lawsuit hearing would be funny as anything.

Manos: The Hans of Fate · (09-20-2012, 03:00 AM)

Good on the Church for getting some value out of it...and I love the title.

Clydefrog · (09-20-2012, 03:01 AM)

truth is stranger than fiction

bjork · (09-20-2012, 03:01 AM)

lol @ "behold the monkey"

MutFox · (09-20-2012, 03:02 AM)

Quote:

The local artist, 80-year-old Cecilia Gimenez

They're using this term loosely right?

Kaako · (09-20-2012, 03:02 AM)

I chuckled reading the OP, hahaa.

EulaCapra · (09-20-2012, 03:03 AM)

Award that lady with anything! She gave the world something truly valuable: laughter.

Newline · (09-20-2012, 03:06 AM)

I still break out in laughter every time I see it.

Esiquio · (09-20-2012, 03:07 AM)

Originally Posted by OttomanScribe:

Nice. All power to her I say.

Admittedly because I reckon that lawsuit hearing would be funny as anything.

Yeah, and you'd be totally cool with a Mohammad painting having the same thing happen. That said, the artist is a complete genius and deserves even more money than the "Fifty Shades of Gray" lady.

Razek · (09-20-2012, 03:10 AM)

This has to be one of the most elaborate funny schemes I've seen. I cannot believe she wants anything to do with this thing still haha.

ShockingAlberto · (09-20-2012, 03:14 AM)

Originally Posted by Esiquio:

Yeah, and you'd be totally cool with a Mohammad painting having the same thing happen. That said, the artist is a complete genius and deserves even more money than the "Fifty Shades of Gray" lady.

It seems like it would be very hard to deface an accepted Mohammed painting.

gwarm01 · (09-20-2012, 03:16 AM)

Originally Posted by ShockingAlberto:

It seems like it would be very hard to deface an accepted Mohammed painting.

Forget defacing, just regular face one.

Esiquio · (09-20-2012, 03:20 AM)

Originally Posted by ShockingAlberto:

It seems like it would be very hard to deface an accepted Mohammed painting.

Yes, I know. Just having one at all would be crazy enough.

Platy · (09-20-2012, 03:28 AM)

She gave it to the church .... the rights are now theirs to do whatever they want

edit : for visitors.

If they are making merchandise they shall pay !

...and shall go to hell also =P

Jintor · (09-20-2012, 03:28 AM)

Gonna get me some precedent

LordCanti · (09-20-2012, 03:28 AM)

Originally Posted by MutFox:

They're using this term loosely right?

"The local dipshit, 80-year-old Cecilia Gimenez" didn't seem as politically correct.

Dr.Acula · (09-20-2012, 03:46 AM)

But it's a restoration, so the original artist still owns the image right, right?

LyleLanley · (09-20-2012, 03:48 AM)

I don't care how many times I see it, that image will always be funny to me.

Mariolee · (09-20-2012, 03:48 AM)

Originally Posted by Dr.Acula:

But it's a restoration, so the original artist still owns the image right, right?

But it's unauthorized restoration if I remember correctly, so the property must still remain to the church, right?

Platy · (09-20-2012, 03:50 AM)

Originally Posted by Dr.Acula:

But it's a restoration, so the original artist still owns the image right, right?

It is closer to an appropriation ... but the church owns the image (she did the restoration as a gift to the church or something), so it can do whatever they want with the original painting.

If they make t-shirts ... THAN the copyright goes to her.

...unless she made a specific contract about future uses of the image, wich I REALLY doubt =P

Kinyou · (09-20-2012, 03:50 AM)

Good give her the money. Then charge her for destroying an invaluable piece of art.

Yeef · (09-20-2012, 04:03 AM)

Something something, derivative work, something something public domain?

kisaya · (09-20-2012, 04:34 AM)

Am I the only one not amused by this "restoration"? :l I think it's pretty shitty how she ruined this painting.

Ken Masters · (09-20-2012, 04:36 AM)

Originally Posted by kisaya:

Am I the only one not amused by this "restoration"? :l I think it's pretty shitty how she ruined this painting.

and she is suing, she seems like a good person all around

LiQuid! · (09-20-2012, 04:36 AM)

A. I think the painting is an improvement.

2. She should get royalties as they are profiting directly from her work.

d. Art is dumb.

SteveO409 · (09-20-2012, 04:36 AM)

Originally Posted by kisaya:

Am I the only one not amused by this "restoration"? :l I think it's pretty shitty how she ruined this painting.

Yeah you were the only one

fallagin · (09-20-2012, 04:37 AM)

Jesus Christ

linko9 · (09-20-2012, 04:37 AM)

Originally Posted by LiQuid!:

A. I think the painting is an improvement.

2. She should get royalties as they are profiting directly from her work.

d. Art is dumb.

What? She vandalized their property, and she should get paid for that?

kisaya · (09-20-2012, 04:38 AM)

Originally Posted by LiQuid!:

A. I think the painting is an improvement.

2. She should get royalties as they are profiting directly from her work.

d. Art is dumb.

:l Really?

smh at all of these points. This makes me really sad :/

Trin · (09-20-2012, 04:38 AM)

If I paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa, can I demand royalties from the Louvre?

speculawyer · (09-20-2012, 04:45 AM)

Originally Posted by LiQuid!:

A. I think the painting is an improvement.

2. She should get royalties as they are profiting directly from her work.

d. Art is dumb.

A.
2.
d.

Now that is art.

Replicant · (09-20-2012, 04:45 AM)

That's high art there folks. How dare you meme creators benefiting from this?

XANDER CAGE · (09-20-2012, 04:49 AM)

Originally Posted by LiQuid!:

A. I think the painting is an improvement.

2. She should get royalties as they are profiting directly from her work.

d. Art is dumb.

Back when this first happened I had to leave the internet for a bit because there were some really stupid sentiments flying around.

Quote:

"Who cares, it's just a painting of Jesus. WHO ISN'T REAL."

Quote:

"Why do people think this is funny? REAL ART WAS DESTROOOOOYED"

Both made me want to punch holes in my monitor. This post gets pretty close, but I applaud your usage of A, 2, and d.

bigosc2k · (09-20-2012, 04:50 AM)

Originally Posted by EulaCapra:

Award that lady with anything! She gave the world something truly valuable: laughter.

/thread

ffdgh · (09-20-2012, 04:52 AM)

those eyes are still creepy.....

jaxword · (09-20-2012, 04:53 AM)

Karsticles · (09-20-2012, 04:53 AM)

I still can't look at that painting without laughing. Someone painted that and thought it should be accompanied by something other than a sincere apology.

chocomaro · (09-20-2012, 04:53 AM)

The articles to this "catastrophe" will never not be funny. As long as the before and after picture of the painting is posted, another day will be made.

Curtisaur · (09-20-2012, 04:54 AM)

Lawyers should really just start telling people "yeeeeah you should really just fuck off instead of going ahead with this."

fallagin · (09-20-2012, 04:54 AM)

Originally Posted by jaxword:

Oh my god, incredible.

LiQuid! · (09-20-2012, 06:15 AM)

My grandma has about a dozen crappy paintings of Jesus up on her walls, if they're so hard up I can ask if she'll part with one.

ffdgh · (09-20-2012, 06:18 AM)

Originally Posted by jaxword:

I fell bad for bursting out laughing....very bad.

LiQuid! · (09-20-2012, 06:20 AM)

Originally Posted by Trin:

If I paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa, can I demand royalties from the Louvre?

If they advertise it as "Come see The Mustachioed Mona Lisa" then you can. They're displaying it and charging admission for the new work as it is called "Behold the Monkey," now. If they were so ashamed of it they wouldn't display it and earn money off of it, they would have sued her for defacing their property, which is even arguable at that. Art is subjective and I see the new HD enhanced version as superior to the old, crusty, half-visible thing it used to be. They got a better painting back than what they gave her and are now displaying it for cash dollars and not paying her royalties for her work. It's criminal.

Foxy Fox 39 · (09-20-2012, 06:21 AM)

Originally Posted by jaxword:

Beast Jesus has so much mileage.

TUROK · (09-20-2012, 06:41 AM)

Lol, I just saw Bean today.

Wow at her wanting royalties. She ruins a priceless painting, now wants money from it?

NoRéN · (09-20-2012, 06:58 AM)

Originally Posted by Esiquio:

Yeah, and you'd be totally cool with a Mohammad painting having the same thing happen. That said, the artist is a complete genius and deserves even more money than the "Fifty Shades of Gray" lady.

lol

SouthernDragon · (09-20-2012, 06:59 AM)

Amazing. She's fortunate that people forgave her for defacing a historic piece of art, and now she wants money?

jaxword · (09-20-2012, 07:01 AM)

Originally Posted by SouthernDragon:

Amazing. She's fortunate that people forgave her for defacing a historic piece of art, and now she wants money?

You're surprised that a rather stubborn and ignorant 80 year old would do that?

SouthernDragon · (09-20-2012, 07:04 AM)

Originally Posted by jaxword:

You're surprised that a rather stubborn and ignorant 80 year old would do that?

The elderly I know know better.