Posted By:
davidcycleAll he had to do was list them as modern or as having been made by him, so buyers know what they are purchasing. If they are works of art, why didn't he take credit for them in the auctions? I know of no artist who doesn't take credit for his art.
And, as noted, if its art photography, why is it being listed in the tobacco card category? eBay has categories for art photography for self representing artists. Isn't it on its face deceptive to list photos of old cards in the tobacco card category and not mention they were made in 2008 by the seller? Isn't it on its face deceptive to write 'Joe DiMaggio' on a baseball, list it in the eBay autographs category and not mention that the 'Joe DiMaggio' was written yesterday by the seller? Whether or not the seller considers it art, whether or not it is art, is beside the point.
"This level of art is not distinquished by "authentic" or "not authentic."
A counterfeit $100 bill can be considered art, but it will also be considered a counterfeit. It's not an either/or proposition. Something can simultaneously be art and be illegal. All the Treasury Department Agent will care about is that it's a counterfeit. To the agent, the art may not be defined by if the bill is 'authentic' or 'not authentic,' but the legality of the bill, and whether or not someone could be going to prison, most certainly is defined by whether or not the bill is "authentic" or "not authentic."
The "art" argument for not having to say something is a modern reprint on eBay is silly. If this was a valid legal argument, all currency counterfeiters would call themselves artists and, for all practical purposes, currency counterfeiting would be legal.