To: Howlin
We haven't proven any fraud with this particular image. Since the photo looks well over 100 years old, it's likely in the public domain. Now, if WC took an old non-copyrighted photograph and traced lines from it to make a stylized version that he sold as "art," he hasn't done anything wrong.
What we need to do to keep looking to see if some OTHER artist thought of doing this first and then WC copied the other artist's line drawing. Now THAT would be the smoking gun we'd need to find.
225 posted on
02/25/2005 1:10:55 AM PST by
CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
(The heart of the wise man inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. - Eccl. 10:2)
To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
Well it's not fraud and it's not a copyright violation but it's also NOT art. And it is unethical.
228 posted on
02/25/2005 1:13:16 AM PST by
Drango
(Freepmail me to get on/off the *NPR/PBS* ping list)
To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
Exactly. nothing wrong with pen-and-inking a public domain photo. Lots of artists do that. Reversing and copying a work by a modern artist is quite another matter.
236 posted on
02/25/2005 1:18:08 AM PST by
JennysCool
(I was so naive as a kid I used to sneak behind the barn and do nothing. -Johnny Carson)
To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
We haven't proven any fraud with this particular image. It may may not be legal fraud, but it exposes the fraud that Ward Churchill is.
He sold this art as his original, as a Native American artist. Both lies.
238 posted on
02/25/2005 1:24:27 AM PST by
Flyer
(The contents of this information is for your exclusive use and should not be forum curran)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson