It is doubtful the Academy asked this artist to:
1) Paint his exact repro on old poster paper or
2) Artificially age the paper to look like old paper and then
3) Linen-back it exactly as a real poster would have been, or to glue it
onto a genuine old poster which had had the image sanded off the front
of the paper.
...thus creating something that could conceivably sold as an "original".
I'm sure that if one were to take the Academy's recreation out of the
frame it would obviously be a modern painting done in acrylics paint,
probably on artboard.
The difference between what this artist did and what the artist(s) who
created the recently revealed fake Universal Horror posters did is that
he only recreated the image at original size... he did not attempt to
physically re-create a poster that could pass for the real deal in every
way. The artist(s) who created the fakes knew exactly what was being
done and why.
-- JR
Franc wrote:
The commission should not have been declined because the restorer was
not being asked to do anything illegal. He was making a copy as best
he could given his craft and his talent.
There were also some really beautiful stone lithos that were produced
for commercial sale a few years back of some classic movie one sheets.
These artists did a beautiful job and at time time did they attempt to
perpetrate a fraud. IF someone tries to pass off these terrific lithos
as an original, it's that person that has committed the fraud, not the
artist who created them with no intention to deceive.
FRANC
-----Original Message-----
*From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf
Of *Doug Taylor
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:17 PM
*To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
*Subject:* [MOPO] Copy or forgery?
The current issue of posters being copied/replicated and sold as
original got me thinking about copies/forgeries and legal/illegal.
Specifically, I thought about the Academy who (as I understand it)
commissioned an exact copy of the Cavalcade OS to hang in their
collection to represent the original OS that they do not currently
own. Of course, they would never represent this as anything other
than a copy, but it made me wonder about the artist. Whomever
made the copy certainly knew that they were recreating a poster as
perfectly to the original as possible and must have considered it
a good and honest commission coming from a reputable, paying client.
Would/should the artist have declined the commission because his
work might have been categorized as forgery? Is it only forgery
if the purchaser represents the piece as authentic? Is it only
forgery if the purchaser attempts to sell the piece as authentic?
Regardless, if the artist accepts the commission to make a
legitimate copy and the purchaser then attempts to sell the work
as authentic, was the artist at fault?
I'm not trying to slant the conversation in any one direction.
This topic just caused me think more about the issues and made it
far less black and white situation for me.
Regards
DBT
Profile <http://www.linkedin.com/in/douglasbtaylor>
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
