How the “Monkey Christ” Restoration Shook the World — and What It Tells Us About Copyright (Introduction)

Blog in English

The now‑iconic “Monkey Christ” incident took place in the small town of Borja, Spain. I remember seeing the news years ago: an amateur painter, Cecilia Giménez (1931–2025), attempted to restore a fresco of Jesus Christ in a local church without official permission—and the result was far from what anyone expected.

(The controversial image cannot be posted here due to copyright issues, so please refer to the links below.)

Now, turning to the main point: revisiting these articles recently, I learned something surprising. Once the ‘failed restoration’ went viral, tourists began flocking to Borja, a town of only about 5,000 people. This unexpected attention brought significant economic benefits. Reports estimate at least €450,000 in total revenue, while some outlets suggest it may have reached €600,000!!!

Later, the town of Borja decided that 49% of the revenue generated from the restored image should go to Giménez. She donated all of her share to charity, and according to her will, these donations continue even after her passing on December 29, 2025.

Meanwhile, the descendants of the original painter, Elías García Martínez (1858–1934), have expressed dissatisfaction that the fresco has not been restored to its original state.

This case raises a number of issues concerning copyright. For example:

■ Is Giménez’s “restored” image protected by copyright?

  • Because her restoration significantly altered the original, it could be considered a separate, original work. Copyright law protects creative expression, and the restored image clearly differs from the original.
  • However, another issue arises: Can a work created through an unauthorized or unlawful act be protected by copyright? In general, even works created through illegal actions are not automatically excluded from copyright protection, but the creator’s ability to exercise those rights may be limited.

■ Can Martínez’s descendants claim moral rights?

  • In the EU, including Spain, copyright lasts 70 years after the author’s death. Since Martínez died in 1934, his copyright expired in 2004.
  • Moral rights (such as the right to prevent unauthorized alterations) vary by country, but in most cases, the legal standing of descendants after copyright expiration is quite limited.

Note: As a basic principle, copyright follows the principle of territoriality, meaning that the law of the country in which the work exists is applied. In other words, because this matter arose in Spain, the applicable law is Spanish copyright law (strictly speaking, the domestic law implementing the EU copyright rules).

In summary, this incident touches on several major legal issues:

  • Copyright
  • Moral rights (e.g., the right to prevent distortion of a work)
  • The status of derivative or altered works
  • Cultural heritage and legal responsibility

It’s a rare case where art, law, and public reaction intersect in unexpected ways.
If time allows, I’d like to explore these issues further in a future post.

And just to be clear, this humble piece of writing — and its copyright — belongs to me, Max Wong, for better or worse :p