[totalcrepe]

To be safe, I think the picture should be awarded to Peter Doig. Perhaps on the grounds that the owner admits it confusable with his brand..

[Normal_gaussian]

He should team up with the family and make a collection called "Pete come Peter" - composed of Peter's reinterpretations of original works by Pete.

[beambot]

So if I make art "in the style of artist <x>", then all my work belongs to that artist?

(I'm not talking about blatant copies.)

[totalcrepe]

Normally no, but here the "owner" was claiming it is the artist's work, not a facsimile or reproduction. So this is an exact case of the normally theoretical ill that trademark and brand related law is supposed to protect against: something that is honestly confused with the work of a manufacturer with a substantial cost to that manufacturer.

Try doing this at the border with a "rolix" and that offended manufacturer has rights to protect their interests not a responsibility to show up to convince customs that your rolix is a real rolex from back when they had trouble spelling. So I'd say this is an example of different justice for different relative social status.