Bumpity bump bump! And PING this entire thread!
"It is an original art work by me, after Thomas Mails," Churchill said. "The fact that the purchaser was ignorant of the reality of what was perfectly publicly stated at the time the edition was printed is not my responsibility."
A closer examination of the Churchill piece revealed there is no credit given to the original artist. And, Churchill refused to provide us with documentation that would prove his claims.
But even if its exists, it wouldn't be enough to protect Churchill from copyright infringement unless he had permission from the copyright holder.
"Unless there was consent for Churchill to do the piece, then there is a copyright infringement here," Hubbell said.
It seem to me the school will HAVE to fire him. Hehehehe
I wonder if Professor Fraud rec'd any federal grants for his art work?