The Legality of Operation Night Watch in the Context of a Modern World
2024 | Lauren Beals (Staff Writer)
A Mutilated Masterpiece
Imagine: a 400-year-old painting that depicts a life-sized militia company embellished with percussive instruments, ostentatious clothing, guns, flags, and, of course, a dead chicken.
This describes what many recognize as one of Rembrandt Van Rijn’s most famous masterpieces, colloquially known as The Night Watch. [1]
Figure 1. Van Rijn, Rembrandt Harmenszoon. The Night Watch. 1642. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
This work fell victim to a centuries-old botched aesthetic procedure, which started when officials from Amsterdam chose this massive piece to decorate the territory’s city hall. [2] Unfortunately, the painting could not fit within the space, so these individuals removed chunks of it and eventually lost track of those missing pieces, whose whereabouts remain unknown centuries later. [3] A museum in the Netherlands, where Van Rijn, better known as Rembrandt, pledged citizenship, called the Rijksmuseum, acquired The Night Watch and started a successful multi-million dollar initiative to restore the painting for the first time. [4] This revolutionary restoration exists as the product of Artificial Intelligence, a concept that manages to add and subtract from the world of art as time progresses. [5]
The Conspiracy that Changed the Canvas
Since the 1960s, art created by Artificial Intelligence gradually emerged as a futuristic ethical dilemma. [6] This recently culminated in the Rijksmuseum’s multi-million dollar project entitled Operation Night Watch, where employees of the aforementioned institution partnered with AkzoNobel to train an Artificial Intelligence module to emulate Rembrandt’s unique painting technique to restore the missing chunks of The Night Watch based on a replica of the original work from another artist created in a different medium. [7] Despite the revolutionary success of this project, which arguably depicts the painting in a way that the artist intended for people to view it, the museum that hosts the restoration project engaged in efforts to distinguish yet conceal its new additions through its emphasis on their decision to ensure that “the reconstructed panels do not touch Rembrandt’s original painting and will be taken down in three months out of respect for the Old Master.” [8] Such a decision suggests that this effective, yet inauthentic form of restoration presents itself as disrespectful to the original artist. Through this, the museum representatives also seem to insinuate that paintings, despite the artist’s intent, are best left to the test of time, even if that renders irreparable destruction. Such projects also ignite questions that concern the legality and ethical implications of future projects of a similar nature.
Figure 2. Van Rijn, Rembrandt Harmenszoon, and Operation Night Watch. The Night Watch. 2021. Artificial restoration on the left and right, distinguished by small gaps. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Is that even Legal?
The constitution of the country in which this restoration takes place, the Netherlands, showcases a severe lack of emphasis on this specific issue, or others related to property overall. [9] The use of Artificial Intelligence to recreate the work of a dead artist such as Rembrandt would likely exist as a dilemma of property-based rights, as it infringes upon the unique nature of the property attributed to Rembrandt through duplication and alteration. On top of their status as a deceased person unable to communicate, the fact that this involves a technology that did not remotely exist in the artist’s lifespan accentuates the difficulty of deciphering the artist’s preferences. With this, the constitution of the Netherlands emphasizes “moral integrity,” which it leaves up to its Parliament to determine on a case-by-case basis. [10]
The Parliament of the Netherlands would have to officially determine the morality of Operation Night Watch. [11] Parliament would likely decide such because the constitution of the Netherlands ensures the protection of one’s “environment,” which “authorities” are tasked with the maintenance of. [12] Since the idea of “environment” remains undefined throughout the constitution, Parliament could easily include paintings, especially for someone such as Rembrandt who identified as an artist, as part of one’s environment in need of protection from infringement in the form of unwarranted imitation. [13] Aside from this, other parts of the Netherlands' constitution and copyright laws appear to support this project.
The 22nd and 23rd Articles of the Netherlands’ constitution give citizens the right to culture along with the right to provide education regardless of merit. [14] The 22nd Article would support the mission of Operation Night Watch because of its principal motive to restore a painting that documents a significant portion of the culture of the Netherlands. [15] The painting achieves this because it focuses on a historic group of Civil Guardsmen that represent the country and because Rembrandt created and received a commission for it in the country as a citizen. [16] The 23rd Article’s provision of education to citizens of the Netherlands accommodates Operation Night Watch as well because the project educates people on the culture of the Netherlands, as mentioned before, the history of the titular painting, and the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence. [17] The Netherlands’s copyright law also resolves the question of whether this project wrongfully violates Rembrandt’s right to property as a citizen of the country upon his death. [18]
In the Netherlands, “Images of artworks of which the creator is still living or has died no longer than 70 years ago cannot be reproduced without permission of the artist or his/her heirs/legal representatives”. [19] Since Rembrandt died as a citizen of the Netherlands in 1699, this rule exempts all of his paintings from copyright-based provisions and allows people to alter them to any extent. [20] The Netherlands Constitution also outlaws ex post facto legislation, which omits actions as “punishable unless it was an offense under the law at the time it was committed.” [21] The copyright law of the Netherlands and the prohibition of ex post facto legislation within the country’s constitution legally justifies Operation Night Watch.
Concluding Contemplations
Operation Night Watch exists as a protected project under the 22nd and 23rd Articles of the Constitution of the Netherlands, along with its copyright law, all of which are protected by the elimination of ex-post facto rules. [22] However, this project would naturally divide people as a result of its reliance on Artificial Intelligence, as shown in the opinions of American adults in a study from the Pew Research Center, which revealed that nearly 50% of this demographic “express an equal mix of concern and excitement” about its capabilities, specifically those which influence their “daily life”. [23] Though not representative of a global population, the opinions of this demographic on this issue are relevant because America’s extreme inclination toward globalization and technological innovation makes its citizens primary receptors of Artificial Intelligence’s newest innovations. [24] While some Americans praise and express excitement for the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence, others find themselves in fear for the country’s characteristic promises of freedom and security because of its advanced nature. [25]
Even though Operation Night Watch remains justified as of now, the plausible increase in scrutiny of Artificial Intelligence imposes a threat upon the fate of future projects to restore otherwise destroyed pieces of artwork. One would benefit from considering the extent to which they would wish for one of their prized possessions to undergo restoration under the precise, though ungenuine hand of Artificial Intelligence.
Sources
Van Rijn, Rembrandt Harmenszoon. The Night Watch. 1642. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Escalante-De Mattei, Shanti. "Artificial Intelligence Restores Mutilated Rembrandt Painting 'The Night Watch.'" ARTnews. Penske Media. Last modified June 23, 2021. Accessed October 13, 2024.
IBID
"Operation Night Watch: Closer than Ever Before." Rijksmuseum.
Van Rijn, Rembrandt Harmenszoon, and Operation Night Watch. The Night Watch. 2021. Artificial restoration on the left and right, distinguished by small gaps. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cengel, Katya. "The First A.I.-Generated Art Dates Back to the 1970s." Smithsonian Magazine, March 2024.
Escalante-De Mattei, Shanti. "Artificial Intelligence Restores Mutilated Rembrandt Painting 'The Night Watch.'" ARTnews. Penske Media. Last modified June 23, 2021. Accessed October 13, 2024.
IBID
"Netherlands's Constitution of 1814 with Amendments through 2008." Constitute. Last modified April 27, 2022.
Van Rijn, Rembrandt Harmenszoon, and Operation Night Watch. The Night Watch. 2021. Artificial restoration on the left and right, distinguished by small gaps. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
IBID
IBID
IBID
IBID
IBID
Schaller, Wendy. "Rembrandt, The Night Watch." Smarthistory. Accessed October 27, 2024.
IBID
"Copyright." RKD Netherlands Institute for Art History. Accessed October 27, 2024.