Okay, I sent an email last night to one of the sellers of Churchill's work; I told them they might want to check into it's credibility.
This is the reply I got back:
ME: "You better read this: http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html
I believe ALL these pictures of his on this site may be questionable."
This is the reply from the seller:
This is a Ward Churchill original oil painting complete with documentation. Wether or not Ward copied the piece is not relevant. Thanks for your interest.
We need to get word to Ryan Mails that his dads work ala Churchill is on Ebay!
Ryan is the only one who can complain to ebay about copyright.
The seller must be a graduate of the "WARD CHURCHILL SCHOOL OF ETHICS
But the Seller of the Original Ward Churchill has documentation from EL WARDO...! It has to be real, I mean Ward Churchill is a professor at the Univerity of Colorado! (said with much sarcasm)
??????
LOL. Oh yes it is relevant. Copyright law is quite clear on the matter. One may not distribute works that violate a copyright. Period. And the courts have held than even unknowing distribution of infringing works is actionable--even if one doesn't make any money off it--which clearly this ebay seller is trying to do. Plus, now he can't even claim he didn't know, which might have ameliorated damages. LOL.
Of course, after he's sued, he could always turn around and file against churchill to try to recoup the judgment. But, ol' Wardo will be, by that time, bankrupted by the copyright/fraud suits against him.
No matter. The seller is on notice that the piece is not an "original" in any sense of the word. He has actual notice that the work is actually a reproduction, and if it loses value when that fact becomes known, he would easily get slapped by Ebay's or Paypal's anti-fraud policy to refund the money to the buyer. Even if Ebay doesn't get the buyer's money back, a quick small claims complaint with the note from FreeRepublic as evidence that the guy was on notice would be plenty adequate to show actual knowledge on the seller's part that he was probably not selling an original.
On the other hand, should the controversy actually INCREASE the value of this ripoff print, the buyer can pocket the profit from a quick turnaround sale. Whether the seller is covering the buyer's loss from his fraud, or watching a customer make a bundle off the print, the buyer doesn't have a serious downside.
What I don't get is how the seller could be so stupid as to continue to label it an "original".
(Heck, I'm tempted to buy it, myself, now!)
Copyright infringement certainly IS relevant.
"This is a Ward Churchill original oil painting complete with documentation. Wether or not Ward copied the piece is not relevant."
WAIT a minute! If the painting is original, it's original and NOT copied. A copyist cannot claim "originality". However, if its a painted copy or facsimile of an original, the copyist must credit the original artist - even if its a photographer. I know, because I sometimes use photos for my own "art models" - not having any live models at hand. However, I am not a copiest nor a duplicator. I use a figure or face in a photograph as a guide for proportion and gesture for my entirely original subject.
Churchill is a thief and a fraud! By providing a document of authenticity guaranteeing originality with his plagiarized/copied/duplicated art work, this PHONEY Indian and fraudulent artist has committed a compounded crime. No wonder Churchill hates law enforcement, the courts, the FBI and the CIA - all of them MUST have records on him. I suggest the IRS should check him out too. Churchill get worse by moment to moment exposures. It's JUSTICE!