You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Prove It's Not You: Case Raises Dangerous Precedent for Artists and Content Creators
There is no way to prove that you didn't do something, unless if you have an alibi, proving that you were some place else at the time when something happened.
Since for something like making a painting, it is fairly impossible to have an alibi (since probably no-one can pinpoint the date or place where the painting was made) it makes this entire thing a useless charade.
I assume that art-historians might be able to prove this by analysing brush-techniques etc,and proving that the "defendant" uses a different painting technique in all of his acknowledged pictues than in this one.
Having to prove that one didn't do something is dangerously close to "guilty until proven innocent".
Yes. They've had to build a whole case using a "straw man" kind of argument. They showed there really was a guy living in the same area (close enough) who had the same name and was a painter. He also attended the school that the plaintiff said the guy he bought it from was a student at. Yet there are some weird inconsistencies on the other side also. Hopefully, when the case is decided, it will seem weird enough that other courts won't look to this one for guidance on the law. But I also hope it does not encourage other plaintiffs to sue artists for this type of thing (the kind of case which, as we now know, at least one court is willing to consider).
Martin Armstrong says stay out of Illinois and New York City. Both places have gone bezerk.
The USA is going to fragment because there is no way to reason with loonies. You'll have to form a nation with people who are like yourself w.r.t. to reason. I am a USA citizen but haven't been there for 10 years. How is Commiefornia?