eBay

loofiam · ‎06-19-2022

maxine*j · ‎06-19-2022

Okay. Then they are just copies. They're not fakes or forgeries, because they are not exact copies, they're boldly signed and dated by the copyist. (I'm assuming the dates are when he did the works, not Moss, but I haven't verified that.)

Maybe he did them as a student. Maybe he did them to decorate his own walls. Maybe he did them as gifts. Who can say? And it's unlikely you will ever track him down to ask him.

-

argon38 · ‎06-19-2022

As Maxine says, they aren't fakes or forgeries - still, I think you need to be careful about copyright considerations when it comes to listing. Ms Moss presumably still owns the rights to the original images. If Enriquez copied them on his private initiative with no intent to sell them on, he may not have obtained commercial authorization. And it's against policy to sell unauthorized copies of artworks on eBay:

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-items/selling-art-policy?id=4284

As the original artist, Moss has the right to approve or prohibit the commercial sale of derivative works as she pleases. A VeRO takedown of the listing may not be likely, but it's possible. The safest approach would be to contact the P. Buckley Moss gallery, to clear it with them and make sure there is no objection:

http://www.pbuckleymoss.com/contact.html

maxine*j · ‎06-20-2022

I guess we can argue about what constitutes as "exact replica painting." I thought that meant, and had long meant in the art world, a painting of precisely the same dimensions, in the same medium, on the same support, copied as perfectly in every detail as the copyist was capable of, and so on. OP's pieces are hardly "exact replicas," by anyone's definitions.

But in the wacky and myopic world of eBay, maybe OP's pieces would be verboten.

Whatever.

-

argon38 · ‎06-20-2022

@maxine*j wrote:
I guess we can argue about what constitutes as "exact replica painting."

The "exact replica" talk in the policy relates to eBay description rules. I was thinking more in terms of the original artist's underlying copyright, which isn't restricted to exact replicas, but extends to derivative works/adaptations:

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaptation of a work may constitute copyright infringement."

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Otherwise I could take any artwork under copyright, make a trivial change here and there, insert my own signature and market it without permission. That would really undermine the whole concept of protection, as it would be profiting from the other person's hard work.

sonomabarn67 · ‎06-20-2022

"Otherwise I could take any artwork under copyright, make a trivial change here and there, insert my own signature and market it without permission. "

That's already been done and it's called...CHINA.

maxine*j · ‎06-20-2022

@argon38 wrote:
@maxine*j wrote:
I guess we can argue about what constitutes as "exact replica painting."
The "exact replica" talk in the policy relates to eBay description rules. I was thinking more in terms of the original artist's underlying copyright, which isn't restricted to exact replicas, but extends to derivative works/adaptations:

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaptation of a work may constitute copyright infringement."

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Otherwise I could take any artwork under copyright, make a trivial change here and there, insert my own signature and market it without permission. That would really undermine the whole concept of protection, as it would be profiting from the other person's hard work.

I just cannot bring myself to live, eat, and breathe "intellectual property rights," although I know that is the new normal. I know that all sorts of new laws, lobbied for successfully by Disney and other huge corporations, have been enacted which counter long traditions and practices as to who could do what, for what purpose, with someone else's work

As for paintings, forever and ever people who could not afford originals bought and enjoyed copies that were clearly copies (not fakes or forgeries). The original artist wasn't hurt, because the buyers of copies were never going to buy one from him. If anything, he may have been helped a bit because a wider audience meant more potential sales; someone who saw a copy might have the wherewithal to buy an original.

However, if new-think and new-law means Enriquez's 40-year-old copies must now be burned on some Supreme & Glorious Rights Bonfire, so be it.

-

argon38 · ‎06-20-2022

@maxine*j wrote:
However, if new-think and new-law means Enriquez's 40-year-old copies must now be burned on some Supreme & Glorious Rights Bonfire, so be it

One reason to be cautious in this particular case is that the artist is still living, with authorised dealerships promoting her established commercial "brand" (complete with signature logo):

http://www.pbuckleymoss.com/dealership.html

So I wouldn't be too surprised if she did have lawyers monitoring sales sites. It's not like asking permission would be difficult anyway, it's just a question of an email with photo. They may well say "fine, go ahead."

argon38 · ‎06-20-2022

@maxine*j wrote:
The original artist wasn't hurt, because the buyers of copies were never going to buy one from him.

Potential loss of revenue isn't the whole story, though. I can understand an artist wanting to control the image they've spent so much time and effort in creating. They might feel that inferior copies betray their vision of the work, and simply not want them on the market. And what if an unauthorised copyist gives the artwork an ideological slant which goes against the artist's principles? Without some legal rights framework, the artist would be helpless.