In a letter sent to both the Ministry of Municipal and Modernization and to the Ministry of Culture, lawyer Ida Gjessing writes that a subpoena with a demand for a ban on demolition in accordance with the current zoning plan, and a ban on modification and remounting of the works, has been sent.
Goes to the cause
– A case is brought before the Oslo District Court with a demand for a ban on demolition and remounting of the “Fishermen” and “The Gull”, Gjessing confirms in an email to NTB.
The heirs believe that they have copyright to the two works of art and say that they will not give consent that the works of art can be given a new position in the new government quarter.
The government on Friday denied that there was any legal basis to stop the demolition, but the heirs disagree.
“Our clients disagree with the state’s position that Viksjø and Nesjar do not have an artistic contribution,” states the letter to the ministries to which NTB has access.
– Want assessment
The lawyer points out in the letter that the state itself has not made any own assessment of who the rights holders are to the work and believes that such an assessment of whether the regulation’s premise on reuse of the works is present should have been done before irreparable tear damage occurs.
“The state itself has, in several contexts, emphasized that at least Nesjar has an artistic creative effort in the works,” states, among other things.
The heirs want an assessment of Erling Viksjø’s placement of the motifs and Carl Nesjar’s performance in natural concrete makes an artistic contribution to Picasso’s work. They want the work on demolition and dismantling to be halted until it has been properly reviewed.
The state has previously stated that they are of the opinion that Picasso is the copyright owner of the works alone and indicates that Picasso’s heirs have consented to the work of the fishermen “The Fishermen” and “The Gull” being given a new, prominent position in the new building.
Ask for exemption
The letter also asks the state not to make the plaintiffs objectively responsible for the expenses a temporary injunction can impose on the state when construction work must be halted.
“In the event that the state does not voluntarily stop the work now pending a proper assessment of the claim, it must be based on the fact that the state is convinced that our clients’ claims can not proceed. In that case, it would not hurt to waive the right to claim such compensation, ”Gjessing writes.