Not really.
> I would have a genuinely hard time proving my whereabouts 4 years ago, let alone 4 decades.
Its a civil case, and the standard of proof on either side is just a "preponderance of the evidence" -- that is, better evidence than the other side has. Its not proof in any kind of absolute sense.
And the judge, in ruling the case had to go to trial, seemed to think Doig had pretty strong proof, just not so indisputable as to make a trial unnecessary.
There's a big gap between getting to trial and winning.
Think about it: if this sets precedent, anyone with enough money who dislikes you for any reason can ruin you by filing a bogus lawsuit about something you putatively did a few decades ago. Sure, in theory you could eventually win based on preponderance of the evidence. In practice, unless you're a multimillionaire like Doig, the legal costs will bankrupt you before that.
Still think it was okay for the judge to send this to trial?
Some 16 year old kid paints something, figures it's worth $100 and sells it for that amount. 40 years later it's now worth ~25 million dollars. The original creator never promised that value to the buyer. On the very remote chance that Peter Doig loses the case, what could he realistically owe? The buyer still has exactly what they paid for, and nothing less. The buyer didn't buy the painting with the expectation that it would someday be worth millions. I can't go out and buy stock and sue the company if it doesn't give me a 250,000:1 return on investment.
No, he has now a less credible work attributed to Doig. Credibility is worth money.
I can't go out and buy stock and sue the company if it doesn't give me a 250,000:1 return on investment.
You can if the stock was already worth 250000:1 and then the CEO made allegedly false claims that crashed the price.
Assuming he's actually the author, he's in a way "defaming the painting".
Anyway, I think all damages should be capped at the original price point, 100$, even in the absurd case the judge sides with the buyer.
The "intrinsic" value may be so, but the market value is whatever people are willing to pay for it, and that counts too.
In other words, you've just swept a messy question under a rug and acted like we'd all be smarter if we just called the mess "a rug" and ignored the details. Economists talk like that because they don't care about the art (they care about economic abstractions.) But you can't think like that if you want to answer questions about art, because those abstractions break down if you do.
But if you buy stock which explodes in value - even if you didn't expect its value to go up - you'd expect to be able to sell it at the market value as genuine stock, no?
No, but if you bought stock in a tiny startup that later increase 250,000:1 you can sue the company if they claim that the stock you claim to own isn't valid any more. That was basically half the plot of that Facebook movie they made.
Because the person who bought the painting is losing millions of dollars.
I'm surprised this has gone to court. Surely there must be easier ways of resolving the identity of the artist who painted this.
Unless of course the original price they paid for the painting was millions of dollars. I doubt that, given they bought it off of a 17-year-old fresh out of prison.
By the time the case is over, they'll probably be in the negative. Pure sunk cost fallacy.
This is an example of the endowment effect (fear of losing value that one perceives to already have), not sunk cost. Sunk cost would be if they continue the trial based on the amount of money they have already spent in fees, as opposed to the money they believe they can recoup later.
(Even that isn't necessarily sunk cost, because legal fees can be covered by the losing party in egregious cases, though that's unlikely here).
The retired corrections officer, Robert Fletcher, 62, said he bought the painting for $100 from a man named Pete Doige (spelled with an e), whom he met in 1975 in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
But that's beside the point. If it's worth $Xm, it can be used as collateral for a loan. And it's probably also insured for a certain amount.
> If it's worth $Xm, it can be used as collateral for a loan
It is worth only that much if it is authentic. The "if" is pretty big it seems.
Economically, there's little difference.
There's a difference economically, because the derivative of marginal utility with respect to income is (generally) negative. In other words, utility is concave with respect to the origin[0].
This makes a difference because, in many circumstances, people are more willing to insure against loss than they are to insure against gain.
It also makes difference legally, as well as financially, because assets can be used to collateralize loans, etc.
[0](That's the first derivative of marginal utility, which is the second derivative of the income-utility function).
Sure.. many economic models make this simplifying assumption. But each man defines his own utility functions, by their very nature.
But how will that make a difference legally in this court case ?
But the owner of this painting isn't happy with that, and wants to appeal to authorities. At some point, courts are the authority you reach.
I noticed the extra "e" on the painting too. Either that is common for Peter to sign, he changed his name to drop the "e", or he forgot how to spell his own name when he was 17. Or someone forged his name as a signature onto the painting but didn't know how to spell "Doig" and didn't bother to look it up hoping they could pass the painting off for millions of dollars.
It's just a different man from Peter Doig.
It's not a "forgery" made after Peter Doig became famous, there was no purposeful deceit here; it's simply another painting from another person who happens to have a similar name. It's coincidence.
I must say that it's one of the most remarkable coincidences I've heard of.
The prisons former art teacher also claims to recognize Doige (with an E) as a former student and claims to remember him painting a painting at least very similar to the one in question. The owner of the painting also claims that the person he bought the painting off of joined the Seafarers International Union shortly after he bought the painting off of him and the Seafarers have a record of a Peter Doige during that time, but not a Peter Doig.
I'm not sure why you so quickly cross that idea out when there are millions of dollars on the line. I'm sure if Doig's paintings were worthless this case wouldn't be seeing the light of day. There is a plausible reason for purposeful deceit in trying to pass Doige's painting off as Doig's painting so the owner could profit millions.
If the painting was completely worthless I'd be inclined to believe that there isn't a chance in hell of purposeful deceit going on because there wouldn't be motivation to do so.
Yes or no please.
People have a history of scamming for a personal profit. Throwing some artist's name on a painting when their paintings are worth millions, claiming they painted it decades ago, and trying to sell it for millions isn't too far-fetched of a scam. Maybe the artist doesn't remember 40 years ago and just says "Yeah, sure, whatever. I painted that 40 years ago." and you just made yourself $8,000,000 for paying someone down the street $80 for a painting.
In this case, one would expect the artist himself to be the most credible expert... But apparently someone disagrees.
The only money he's "missing" is theoretical money that might exist if it turns out the painting is actually by Doig. Right now, there's no damages, and it's ridiculous that the judge accepted this case.
By that logic I should be suing the lottery because I lost millions of dollars when my numbers weren't picked.
>The retired corrections officer, Robert Fletcher, 62, said he bought the painting for $100 from a man named Pete Doige (spelled with an e), whom he met in 1975 in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
In short, no.