And now for something completely different and shall we say rather obscure.... a German decision relating to an artist's rights in the original models that inspired his work of art: in this case two 22 year old potato fries.
Mr Bohnenberger argued that the original potato fries as well as his actual work both were works of art. The Munich court however was reportedly somewhat reluctant to discuss the artistic value of the 22 year old potato fries and instead focused on their monetary value. In this context the court acknowledged that an art collector, who had acted as a witness in the court hearings in January 2012, had stated that she had offered Mr Bohnenberger 2500 Euro for the original fries which she said she had intended to buy from him.
In light of this witness account, the Higher Regional Court thus held that the gallery owners had breached the contract between artist and the gallery, more particularly they had failed their duty to store the fries (Aufbewahrungspflicht). The lower court, the Landgericht München I, had seen things slightly differently: its judges could not see any monetary damage and thus had agreed with the gallery owners that the original fries were not works of art so that the gallery did not have a duty to store them.
The artist had countered this with the argument: well, if they say the fries are not art, then why did they keep them in the first place? Der Spiegel wonders how this case ever ended up in court in the first place (yes, good point... muses Merpel) and hints this may be connected to the fact that the artist and the gallery owners had previously met in court when Mr Bohnenberger had sued the gallery to have his "Pommes d’Or" returned.
According to German media reports in Die Welt and Der Spiegel, The Higher Regional Court of Munich (OLG München, case reference: 23 U 2198/11) last week held that the artist Stefan Bohnenberger should be awarded damages of 2000 Euro because his former art gallery had lost the 22 year old original potato fries on which Mr Bohnenberger had based his work "Pommes d’Or", a gold cross formed of potato fries (see to the right below, screenshot from Spiegel Online).
Mr Bohnenberger argued that the original potato fries as well as his actual work both were works of art. The Munich court however was reportedly somewhat reluctant to discuss the artistic value of the 22 year old potato fries and instead focused on their monetary value. In this context the court acknowledged that an art collector, who had acted as a witness in the court hearings in January 2012, had stated that she had offered Mr Bohnenberger 2500 Euro for the original fries which she said she had intended to buy from him.
In light of this witness account, the Higher Regional Court thus held that the gallery owners had breached the contract between artist and the gallery, more particularly they had failed their duty to store the fries (Aufbewahrungspflicht). The lower court, the Landgericht München I, had seen things slightly differently: its judges could not see any monetary damage and thus had agreed with the gallery owners that the original fries were not works of art so that the gallery did not have a duty to store them.
The artist had countered this with the argument: well, if they say the fries are not art, then why did they keep them in the first place? Der Spiegel wonders how this case ever ended up in court in the first place (yes, good point... muses Merpel) and hints this may be connected to the fact that the artist and the gallery owners had previously met in court when Mr Bohnenberger had sued the gallery to have his "Pommes d’Or" returned.
The lost potato fries case
Reviewed by Birgit Clark
on
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html