Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
POLICE IN ITALY have recovered two Van Gogh paintings stolen in 2002 in Amsterdam.
The works - Seascape at Scheveningen (1882) and Congregation leaving the Reformed Church in Nuenen (1884/85) – have been recovered from the Naples mafia, the museum said today in a statement.
The Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam said the works were found during a “massive, continuing investigation” by Italian prosecutors and organised crime officials.
Museum director Axel Rüger said: ”After all those years you no longer dare to count on a possible return.
“We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Italian [authorities].
The paintings have been found! That I would be able to ever pronounce these words is something I had no longer dared to hope for.
The paintings were taken when thieves used a ladder and sledgehammers to break into the museum.
They were among assets worth millions of euros seized from the Camorra group by Italian authorities. The thieves broke into the museum through the roof during the night of 6-7 December 2002 and used sledgehammers to break a first-floor window.
The theft of the two works, described as priceless by art experts, led to criticism of security at the world’s major art museums.
The uninsured paintings, on loan from the Dutch government, were taken off the walls of the main exhibition hall, despite the presence of guards on patrol and infrared security systems.
The museum said it was so far unclear when the works would be returned to Amsterdam but said they appeared to be in “relatively good condition”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Maybe I’m getting old but I have no idea what that article was about
It’s essentially about two guys who made a company based on their popularity online and tried to trademark the word ‘reacts’ among other things. They wanted the ability to remove content which looked anything like theirs (or not, they had a go at Ellen DeGeneres for a scene which only vaguely alluded to their work) and ultimately the right to sue anyone who wouldn’t abide by their wishes.
Essentially, it’s about what happens when trademark laws are taken to a ridiculous extreme.
But wtf is a ‘react video’? Jaysus I’m only 27 and I haven’t a clue…
It’s basically people filming their reactions to things. Usually YouTube videos. How anyone thinks they could trademark that is beyond me
That’s what I thought, but then I thought, Na no one would watch something so utterly mundane…
I actually heard from somebody I watch on YouTube sometimes, a ranter that the Fine Bros went around copyright claiming videos that even had the word “react” or “reaction” in them and some of these videos were from as long ago as 2007! Its absolutely ridiculous what they are doing.
Two arrogant p***ks react to being taken down a peg or two.
Sorry, you can’t take back being douchebags. I hope your subscriber exodus continues.
I can’t blame someone for wanting to protect their work, although the Fine Brothers were not looking to do that. They were looking for the freedom to monetise an entire style of video.
It would be like Disney trying to protect the Star Wars trademark (fully understandable) but also looking for the freedom to sue any other film company that produced something even remotely like it.
One of the problems is their videos are all based off of other people’s content. They make money using other people’s videos and try to trademark something incredibly vague. They certainly were not the first to come up with the concept of a reaction video either.
Prohibited ave become too greedy. They already make a lot from their videos so why attempt to milk more…money makes the world go round I guess…
People have *
I’m not sure if she was successful or not but Paris Hilton wanted to trademark the words, “that’s hot”. Ridiculous!
The great thing about YouTube is that it’s not like television, in the sense that you don’t need a massive team of people to create something. Anyone with a webcam and a computer can make a YouTube video and trying to licence what essentially is a whole genre of videos on the website will ruin the whole thing, in my opinion.
They are nothing without the content other people created.
Exactly Seth.
Exactly! I’m so relieved that they decided not to go ahead. this kind of legalisation of YouTube video formats would have had a drastic effect on how video sharing works and would destroy the notion of the freedom of the Internet. there’s space for anyone to express themselves on YouTube, and this move would have damaged that
Alice I’m surprised they didn’t expect this kind of backlash after what happened to Sam Pepper. And anyway, if you get caught stealing someones idea/video on youtube you get dragged in the comments lmao
very true! there’s a level of courtesy that you follow and if you don’t- you get called out! I’m so relieved it’s been reversed that could have been catastrophic
“YouTube Stars” – what is wrong with this statement? :-)
TV Stars, Movie Stars, no difference really
Well said @Seth.
Hey ho
Two knobs who make videos featuring lots of pretentious people playing up for the camera.
They wanted to trademark their series, as in the kids react and elders reacts!
have your say