Churchill: Ward Churchill art work has been shown to be a copy.
|"Intellectual property attorney James Hubbell compared the two works side by side, concluding it was likely no accident. "It's very obvious that the Churchill piece was taken directly from the Mails' piece, there's just too many similarities between the two for it to have been coincidence." When CBS 4 contacted Churchill Wednesday afternoon near his office on the campus of CU Boulder, the embattled ethnic studies professor initially refused to answer questions. In response to continued questioning, Churchill became aggressive, pushing a handful of paperwork in front the TV camera, and soon after, swiping his arm at the crew. A short time later, Churchill emerged from his office and agreed to comment on his artwork. He acknowledged his serigraph was based on the Mails drawing, and insists he disclosed that fact during the initial release of the prints. "It's an original work by me, after Thomas Mails ... the fact that the purchaser was ignorant of the reality of what was perfectly publicly stated at the time the edition was printed is not my responsibility," Churchill said. Churchill's serigraph gives no credit to Mails on the work itself. The professor also refused to provide documentation to support his claims. Even if such documentation does exist, it may not matter as far as copyright law is concerned. "In my opnion, unless there was consent for Churchill to do his piece, then there is copyright infringement here," Hubbell said. When contacted at his home in North Carolina, Ryan Mails, the son of the late Thomas Mails said the family still retained the copyrights to the drawings of the Mystic Warriors book, and that his father fiercely defended the copyrights. "I cannot imagine he would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces," he said."|
The two art works are at the link above.
Myopiczeal: "... but something about the two pieces of information together in my mind raise some question I can’t quite put my finger on. Guy finds fraudulent work of art, is disappointed, goes to the newspaper, and then immediately lists it on eBay for hundreds of dollars. I’m just raising the question. Is it possible this “fraudulent art” thing is just a well crafted entrepreneurial hoax?"
Michelle Malkin has found more Churchill copies.