Onward We March: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Onward We March (view source)

Revision as of 20:42, 3 January 2019

16 bytes removed , 3 January 2019

no edit summary

Bureaucrats, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, sysadmin, Administrators

1,588

edits

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 |location=Trumbull Library
 |description_of_content=The painting shows Mother Teresa alongside feminist icons like Gloria Steinem and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.
-|description_of_incident=The painting was ordered taken down by a city government official, First Selectman Tim Herbst. But even though the complaints the library received concered seeing the famous Catholic nun alongside Sanger, Herbst claimed that the town received a formal letter contending that the painting infringes copyright in using Mother Teresa’s image. Library Director Susan Horton told the Trumbull Times that there was “no proof that the copyright is valid,” and that members of the library board disagreed with the decision to remove the painting. But it was removed nonetheless. If including the image of a public figure in a painting were a copyright violation, it would be impossible to create a critical image of a politician, or even an admiring portrait of a historical figure like Mother Teresa.
+|description_of_incident=The painting was ordered taken down by a city government official, First Selectman Tim Herbst. But even though the library received complaints about the placing of the famous Catholic nun alongside Sanger, Herbst claimed that the town received a letter contending that the painting infringes copyright by using Mother Teresa’s image. Library Director Susan Horton told the Trumbull Times that there was “no proof that the copyright is valid,” and that members of the library board disagreed with the decision to remove the painting. It was removed nonetheless. If using images of public figures in paintings constituted a copyright violation, it would be impossible to create even an admiring portrait of a historical figure like Mother Teresa much less a political critique.
-Last week Herbst said to the Connecticut Post. ”As soon as I get an agreement, which is standard operating procedure for other town buildings, it goes back up,” Friday March 6th the painting was once again exhibited.
+Last week Herbst stated to the Connecticut Post. ”As soon as I get an agreement, which is standard operating procedure for other town buildings, it goes back up,” Friday March 6th the painting was once again exhibited.
-The painting was vandalised on March 11th, during a Library Board of Trustees meeting. The owner of the painting, Richard Resnick, decided not to press charges for the damage; "I am sorry for the person who felt so compelled and will not press charges for property destruction. I believe that those who object have misunderstood the important message that the painting represents." Resnick stated in Trumbull Times.
+The painting was vandalized on March 11th, during a Library Board of Trustees meeting. The owner of the painting, Richard Resnick, decided not to press charges for the damage; "I am sorry for the person who felt so compelled and will not press charges for property destruction. I believe that those who object have misunderstood the important message that the painting represents." Resnick stated in Trumbull Times.
 As a comment, Herbst stated that the vandalism was what he had been afraid would happen to the controversial piece and explained that it was the reason why he wanted an indemnity agreement in place and insurance on the collection.