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!)
What a poseur. Those parents who are sending $$$ to those universities where he is speaking should be raising all holy h311.
LOL.....the thought crossed my mind!
A long time ago, in a marriage far, far away, my first husband lived in NH; we use to go to Sturbridge on some trips; at that time there was a Norman Rockwell shop where you could buy lithographs, etc.
You could also buy signed prints for -- $10.00! TEN DOLLARS.
So, we go one time and there are no prints; I asked the girl working there why there were none and she said, "Mr. Rockwell has been sick."
I sometimes look at my prints and think I should have asked her "How sick is he," as he died within months. I should have bought those signed lithographs for $1800.00. :-)
Whoops.......FIFTY DOLLARS!