Posted on 02/24/2005 10:19:19 PM PST by Fizzie
Churchill Art Piece Called Into Question
by CBS4 News reporter Raj Chohan
Feb 24, 2005 8:03 pm US/Mountain BOULDER, Colo. (CBS4) Boulder County resident Duke Prentup has been a fan of native American art for as long as he can remember. That love of art took him to the home of Ward Churchill in the early 1980's, where Prentup bought several pieces of Churchill's art, including a serigraph titled "Winter Attack."
"I have enjoyed them ever since immensely, they're obviously up inside my house," Prentup said.
Last month came a stunning revelation, though, as as Prentup flipped through a 1972 book called The Mystic Warriors of the Plains written and illustrated by the late artist Thomas E. Mails. He found a sketch that was strikingly similar to the Churchill piece.
(Excerpt) See the rest of the article, and photo comparisons of the 2 pieces of art here: http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html
(Excerpt) Read more at news4colorado.com ...
Yelp any classroom teacher would recognize the technique....Once did a project with the Mona Lisa....Projected it on a poster and had the students fill in with dots from a whole punch....Actually was much more artistic then Ward's work and it was accomplished by a challenged elementary students.
I'd think Ebay is in deep crap too, for allowing this Seller to make fraudulent/misleading claims. Now that the copyright infrigement issue is in quetion, Ebay might want to suspend the auction until matter is resolved.
Maybe they have a disclaimer to such things though.. just a thought.
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.
I just watched that video
He hit the reporter and then later comes out of his office smiling like nothing happen
Good job. O'Reilly mentioned it briefly this morning.
"CU has a major problem on their hands. The longer they wait, the worse it gets. He is discrediting their university."
Churchill is a disaster for CU and every university/college which have hundreds of faux professors like Churchill.
We will see a new industry of conservative college students outing their Faux Professors.
And currently: Berry is at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Professor Berry teaches the History of American Law, and the History of Law and Social Policy. She also advises students in African American History.
http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/berry.htm
Courses: HIST 168: U.S. Legal History to 1877, HIST 169: History of American Law Since 1877, HIST 467: History of Law and Social Policy.
I'd like to see a few professors out the faux department head....Many either go along with or stay quiet for fear or what the DH can/will do. The system needs to be fixed.
I don't know copyright laws very well ..
I suppose if the have a really good lawyer they may try to claim they were not aware of Professor Fraud's painting
But I'm guessing they are aware now and if they don't pull those auctions they are in deep doo doo
BTW .. I want to say to the Reporter at CBS4 .. Great Job on the investigative reporting !!
May I add to that..."Hope he presses charges!"
Many people don't know that Mary Frances Berry is/was chair of Pacifica, the ultra left wing, tax funded, public broadcasting network.
*wink* *wink*
As somebody up the thread said, evidently Ward thinks 'copyright' means he has the 'right' to 'copy.'
He claims he's an educator.
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 hoot.
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!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.