Is there a law against destroying works of art of historic importance when you are the owner? At work we recently had a bit of a debate about whether or not it would be legal to destroy a work of art if you are the owner of said work. A few years ago, Banksy destroyed his own painting by shredding it, and recently there have been several instances where people have vandalized paintings by throwing paint, or by gluing themselves to a work of art. Suppose I was the legal owner of (for example) a Van Gogh, or Michelangelo's David, would it be legal for me (for whatever reason) to destroy it, even though it is a work of art which is of both great financial and historical value? For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that the work of art is not insured, so there's no insurance fraud to deal with. Basically I'm just curious to learn if it would be legal or not. Obviously laws differ from country to country, but I'd still like to know if there's some sort of worldwide consensus, and if there are countries who have very different laws on this subject.
In general, ownership of a thing includes the property right to dispose of or destroy the thing. However, there may be statutory prohibitions for special categories of property. Many countries have entered into treaties that obligate them to identify, protect, and conserve for future generations the cultural heritage in its territory. This includes &quot;architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting.&quot; See e.g. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. How this protection is realized is dependent on the nation's domestic implementation. For one example of a protection regime, see british-columbia. When a work has been designated as a &quot;Provincial heritage object&quot; on the Provincial heritage register (Heritage Conservation Act, s. 3(1)), the owner is prohibited from damaging, desecrating, or altering that work without a permit (s. 12.1(2)(a)). There is also a complex web of import and export restrictions relating to objects that a country has identified as cultural heritage. Many countries make it an offence to import an item from another country that has identified the object as cultural heritage without an export permit from that other country. That export permit will often not be provided to an entity without demonstrated capacity to preserve the cultural property. The permit can also subject to conditions (presumably, at least to not destroy the thing). See generally &quot;Guide to Exporting Cultural Property from Canada,&quot; &quot;Cultural property export permits.&quot; I am not familiar with the United States' implementation, but it is a party to the World Heritage Convention and has passed various statutes dealing relating to the protection of cultural moveable property.
State law may provide for criminal prosecution for vandalism, which could result in a fine or even imprisonment. The state can prosecute you, private individuals cannot. Fines imposed by a private organization are only enforceable through contracts, where damages could be recovered, but penalties cannot be assessed. (&quot;Late fees&quot; are in the class of &quot;liquidated damages&quot;, where the agreement says what the late fee is – they don't just make up a number). Ga. Code § 44-3-223 does require you to &quot;comply with all lawful provisions of the property owners' association instrument&quot;, but if it isn't in the instrument, you do not have to comply.
I'm just going through high-level concepts with this answer, it's possible I miss a detail. Architectural works are indeed copyrightable works in accordance with Berne Convention Article 2(1). Both Big Ben and Eiffel Tower are no longer under copyright due to their architects dying more than 70 years ago. French moral rights do not expire (UK moral rights expire with the economic rights). Most relevant to this question are the rights to attribution and against derogatory/damaging/prejudicial treatment defined by Berne Convention Article 6bis(1). Copyright law is on a per-country basis and under Berne Convention Articles 3 &amp; 4, foreign works are accorded equal rights to domestic works. French moral rights apply within France. Taken together, in the UK these architectural works are in the public domain. In France, economic rights (copyright) have expired, but moral rights still exist. Miniature replicas should be fine, but be sure to include attribution.
You misunderstand the nature of copyright. Holding copyright allows you to decide how the work can be copied: there is no obligation on you to publish it if you don't want to. After your copyright expires you don't have to publish it either: the only thing that has changed is you can no longer prevent anyone making a copy. The lost works of Aristotle are in the public domain - if you can find them you can make as many copes as you like.
The tenant is responsible for damage beyond “fair wear and tear” which this obviously is. If it is as bad as you suggest then it may require professional forensic cleaning which can run to thousands of pounds. At some point, things like carpets etc. can be cheaper to replace than to repair. There is no upper limit (beyond, at the extreme, the cost of demolition and rebuilding the dwelling), however, there may be a practical limit being the amount the tenant can pay before going bankrupt.
Do you have an explicit permission by the artist? Does the artist give a blanket permission to anyone which covers this kind of use of their work (a license)? If no, then you commit a copyright violation when you use their work for your blog. This applies to practically any country which signed the Berne convention which is almost everywhere in the world. Having no commercial interest is usually not an excuse to violate copyright. Regarding which jurisdiction applies when you, your website and the copyright holder are in different countries: I opened a new question about this.
A Probably. Exceptions include: A didn’t own the materials from which the flute was made; the flute belongs to the material’s owner. A made the flute under a contract of employment; the flute belongs to A’s employer. A has sold the flute before making it; the flute belongs to the buyer. This is not only the law in india but pretty much everywhere in the world. If you want to ask about redistributive justice or taxation/welfare; please post the question on our sister sites philosophy or politics.
Don't get hung up on unauthorized resale. That only prohibits unauthorized resale. Authorized resale is ok. From http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine: The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner. The right to distribute ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy. See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) &amp; (c). Since the first sale doctrine never protects a defendant who makes unauthorized reproductions of a copyrighted work, the first sale doctrine cannot be a successful defense in cases that allege infringing reproduction.