http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/25/motley-crue-journals-of-the-damned-set/ Luxist Comments for Motley Crue Journals Of The Damned Set http://www.luxist.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.luxist.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/25/motley-crue-journals-of-the-damned-set/http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/25/motley-crue-journals-of-the-damned-set/
Additionally, there is no such thing as "authenticity" for reproductions. The so-called "Certificate of Authenticity," for these non-disclosed reproductions misrepresented as lithographs,is a not worth the paper it is printed on.

Lithographs are original works of visual art "wholly created by hand by the artist" and "excludes any mechanical and photomechanical processes." (U.S. Customs)

Specifically, a lithograph is drawing by the artist on a limestone block, metal plate or mylar. The artist drawn image is the tool. The tool is then used by the artist to print their edition of lithographs. Like any original work of visual art, a lithograph is created by the artist. The only difference between an artist created and printed lithograph and an artist created painting, is the lithographic creative medium allows for more than one original.

Now on the other hand, under California Civil Code Statute 1738 to 1745, if you sell a reproduction for $100 or more, you are required to disclose it as a -reproduction-. Failure to do so may include but not limited to: refund, interest, treble damages and $1,000 fine per individual sale.

With an so-called "limited-edition" of 500 that would potentially be $50,000 in refund, $150,000 in treble damages and $500,000 in fines for a minimum total of $700,000 in damages. And that is not including court cost, attorney fees and expert witness fees.

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, the Right of Attribution shall not apply to a reproduction. Which in layman's terms, the printer owns the rights to the reproductions they reproduced and are only obligated to give you the 500 reproduction you paid for. All the overruns, plates, negatives and the like would be owned by printer and could if they wanted to reproduce more with or without your knowledge. There goes your so-called "limited edition." Of course you may have had all reproductions rights reassigned back to you from the printer but then you would have known they are reproductions from the very beginning.

So, my recommendation is to give full and honest disclosure to reproductions as -reproductions-. They will probably still sell them to their fans and not unfairly competing against those artists who actually create lithographs, much less those who sell fully disclosed reproductions.

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar
Fernandina Beach, Florida
]]>Nov 25th 2008 2:00PMhttp://www.luxist.com/2008/11/25/motley-crue-journals-of-the-damned-set/http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/25/motley-crue-journals-of-the-damned-set/Nov 25th 2008 3:58PMhttp://www.luxist.com/2008/11/25/motley-crue-journals-of-the-damned-set/http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/25/motley-crue-journals-of-the-damned-set/
U.S. Customs regulations, U.S. Copyright Law and California Civil Code 1738 to 1745 confirm that there are legal standards for the factual perspective I write of.

Finally, a "knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to his or her detriment" is one legal definition of -fraud-.

What would the public think if they found out that Motly Crue Band misrepresented a poster as an original work of visual ie., lithograph for $100?

Misrepresentation for profit is -not- marketing.

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar
Fernandina Beach, Florida]]>Nov 25th 2008 6:05PM