The artist sued for denying that he is the author of a painting, won the lawsuit - but on the "alibi" evidence, not on the law, which is a dangerous trend

An update on a previous blog - Peter Doig, the artist who was sued to force him to admit, or to have the court declare that a certain painting was Peter Doig's work, when he denied it (and thus, the value of it went down), won the lawsuit.

The claim was made by the initial alleged buyer of the painting that he allegedly bought it from Peter Doig when he was incarcerated in Canada for possession of LCD.

Peter Doig provided "alibi" evidence that he was in school, not in prison, in 1976, the time of the alleged purchase.

More evidence was provided that the painting was made by a now-deceased Canadian carpenter Peter Doige.

Yet, what is scary is that the lawsuit was not dismissed outright, simply because the artist denied he painted the picture - and had to go to an evidentiary hearing.

That means, that more of such lawsuits are possible, and that is an extremely dangerous trend.

If a person denies that a certain work of art is his, that should be the final word in any "determinations" of authorship.