Art Scam Or Ignorance? an accidental exhibit
Dear Terence E. Jackson
U*Space Gallery
Atlanta, Georgia 30312-1877,
I wonder if you recall purchasing a small oil sketch from me not too long ago. I sold it to you for 13 dollars through one of my Etsy shops. You paid promptly and offered generous compliments on my work. Thank you again for your purchase. Your support of this hard working individual artist is much appreciated. You also suggested I send along some artist info with the piece…
“Your work is wonderful. Please feel free to add any additional artist information when you send.
Terence“
So I referred you to my website where you could read more information about me and my work because I appreciated your interest. It’s always nice to find patrons who take the time to find out a little bit about the artist whose work they are collecting. All in all, our transaction was a pleasant one.
Imagine my surprise now, when i stumbled onto this. You’ve listed my sketch for resale on your website. You’ve listed it under the heading “New Works” in the “Exhibitions” section. You’ve listed it at approximately 3.84615 times what you paid for it–an interesting markup. Yes, how surprising. I had no idea I was showing work at U*Space Gallery.
Until this point, I’d always been aware of every show in which I’d exhibited… or so I’d thought. *sudden perplexed look* I’d been under the impression that gallery representation was an agreement entered into knowingly by two parties. I’d come to believe that as an artist it took conscious determination and effort to find galleries willing to exhibit and promote your work. I had even accepted that the standard 50% commission was a fair exchange for the hard work, dedication and expenditures a committed gallerist is prepared to invest in order to promote an individual artist’s work. Such silly assumptions, I now see. Thank you for purchasing my work. Thank you for ascribing it such value. And above all, thank you for making apparent the extent of my naivety.
Sincerely,
-Steph Gerolimatos
Initially, I was going to send the above message via email to Terence. However, upon further reflection, I have instead decided to post it here on our beloved D’Arte Board. I am a fan of poetic irony. Plus, i figure it might spur some interesting discussion, and in my book, interesting discussion trumps stewing in indignation any day of the week.
So what do you all think? It’s a strange turn of events for sure. As of right now, I’m deeming Terence’s behavior “questionable”. I can’t be certain he is completely aware that what he has done here is not something with which an artist would be 100% cool. However, I am not convinced that he is ignorant of how his actions might be construed by said artist.
For my part, I did do a little checking when I saw that someone associated with a gallery had made a purchase from my Etsy shop. I googled because I’m nosy that way. I found the U*space website and my thoughts went something like this, “hmmn, interesting… not a good fit for my work, not to mention, this is just a 13 dollar sketch and not something I’d show at a gallery. If the question of exhibiting arises, I will respectfully decline.” I went ahead and mailed the sketch under the assumption that Terence was purchasing it as a private collector since that’s what’s meant to happen through Etsy–it’s a venue for individual artists and crafters to sell their work directly to collectors. It’s a really cool resource. From their website…
“Etsy is an online marketplace for buying & selling all things handmade.
Our mission is to enable people to make a living making things, and to reconnect makers with buyers. Our vision is to build a new economy and present a better choice“
So I’m not happy about what has happened, but I am sort of amused. Even if there’s nothing illegal about his actions, what Terence has done is pretty smarmy. Posting my sketch for resale in this manner, without my knowledge or consent, makes it appear as if his gallery represents me. It suggests that I am knowingly associated with his gallery and that I agreed to allow my work and information to be presented on his website. None of these things are true. In reality, I had no idea this would happen. I only happened onto the webpage where my sketch is up for sale while googling my name today to see where in the ranks my website and blogs appear. However, the fact that someone would do something so sketchy and so obviously in breech of accepted gallery etiquette kind of makes me giggle. I wonder if all the art on the site was acquired in the same way–under the guise of a transaction between artist and client. It’s certainly a clever way to do away with the nuisance of accepted gallery practices like negotiating terms and signing contracts. This way, the pesky artist has no say in the matter at all.
Yeah so anyway, let’s talk about it. Do you think this is an example of acceptable business practice in the dog-eat-dog world of art? Is it ethical? Is it legal? Is it poor etiquette? Is it funny? How would you feel if this happened to you? What would you do? Tell us what you think.
January 30, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Oucho
Surprising I guess, the optimist in me says this is good because you never know who the work will end up with. On the other hand, it is your work and he should have asked for your permission to display and sell the work in his gallery. But then again the businessman in me says that you sold the work and he should be able to do whatever he wants (however grubby it may be). I can’t really bring myself to say that what he did was wrong … just misleading. I doubt he has ever worked with artists before. I see this as a sort of head hunting, he believes you have talent. Take it as a compliment, life’s too short to be angry.
January 31, 2009 at 12:02 am
[...] Link to the blog: http://darteboard.com/2009/01/30/art-scam-or-ignorance-an-accidental-exhibit/ [...]
January 31, 2009 at 2:46 am
Wow, you are a strong person. I would be livid.
January 31, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Hmmmn. I’m of two minds about this one Steph. It certainly does seem a bit either underhanded of him, or at least blatently naive. Not the way one would expect it to be handled by a professional gallery to say the least. I tend to agree with Daniel on this; at least he sees value in your work, and it may lead to another collector being exposed to (and potentially purchasing) your work. I also don’t think you would be amiss in dropping him a note to let him know that you are aware of what he’s done, and tell him that if he is interested in continuing to represent your work, that you need to work out a formal agreement. That way you should be able to avoid any future “surprises”. Fair is fair, and he should expect to pay you your proper commission if he wants to sell your works at his gallery.
January 31, 2009 at 12:13 pm
definitely shady. not sure if its illegal or not but unethical for sure, but i guess the nature of business is dog eat dog. if it were 100′s of dollars i’d be more pissed but……there may be something you can do legally since he used your bio/statement and i assume he didn’t get permission. i’m no lawyer but it seems maybe some lines were crossed here. i would look into it just for punitive reasons, not expecting much in return but just enacting my wrath for wrath sake.
January 31, 2009 at 12:46 pm
thanks for commenting Daniel and Darya. yeah, i’m not so much angry as i am stunned, oddly entertained and well, a little irritated. if i was angry, he’s have heard directly from me by now.
i don’t care that he’s reselling the sketch. he bought it and can do whatever he wants with it. reselling it is sorta like regifting which i’m fine with. i just don’t like the way he’s doing it. i’d probably be happier about it if he’d done it on ebay or at a tag sale or something–in a way that wasn’t so false.
what bugs me is the way he’s making it seem as if this 13 dollar sketch is representative of my body of work as a whole and i’m directly associated with the gallery and will profit from it. none of that is true. all it represents is me playing around with materials and ideas. i have boxes of similar sketches. i sold it for next to nothing to try and clear some room in my studio. i liked it enough that i figured maybe someone would want it, maybe i could make enough $ to buy a half a tube of paint and i could avoid dumping more stuff in a landfill–win, win, win. if i’d known the guy was gonna turn it into some kind of fake online Gerolimatos portfolio, i probably would have cancelled his purchase. for an even funnier glimpse of the guy’s insincerity or ignorance, check out the about section of his website. here’s an excerpt…
“Completely dedicated to working with artists who have found the power to pull from their creative center vs what the public may demand, the gallery’s main goal is to focus simply on the artists and the works they create, not trends.”
now how exactly is he working with the artist here? he bought a cheap sketch of mine and now he’s passing it off as a 50 dollar piece of art in a manner that suggests it’s being sold and shown to somehow benefit me.
p.s. Daniel, i didn’t know you had an optimist in you? where’d you pick him up?
kidding.
also, i was laying in bed this morning thinking about random stuff when all of a sudden i realized something. i didn’t actually send this guy any info about me or my work. i referred him to my website. he must have copied and pasted stuff from there. i should probably edit the letter to reflect that.
January 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm
thanks for your thoughts, Jim. the thing is, i don’t want to be represented by that gallery. as i said before, it’s Not a good fit. if i’d been asked, i would have respectfully declined. and again, i’m not going to contact him directly because i’ve decided that it’s funnier and makes more sense in a poetically ironic way to place my “response” online without him being directed to it. this way, maybe he’ll stumble onto it in the same way i stumbled onto the page with my work for sale. does that make sense?
January 31, 2009 at 1:03 pm
thank you, too David.
No, he didn’t ask permission for anything at any point. i doubt that anything he’s done is illegal although it would be interesting to find out if there are any laws regarding this sort of thing. in all honesty, i really don’t have any interest in wrath.
i wonder, does anyone else think the whole thing is kind of funny?
January 31, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I agree with the general attitude here. His was legal if egregiously a-ethical conduct, and whether his promotion of you to sell this work which is technically his is unlawful is another thing. Anyhoo, say the word and I’ll have my associates have a little “talk” with him.
January 31, 2009 at 6:13 pm
he’s a pretty smoove dude if ya ask me.
January 31, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I’d be perplexed and surprised, too. I feel the same way, if someone buys my work and wants to sell it, they can; but to present the work as if they represent me, which it looks like with the bio, etc. that’s a big NOT in my mind. I guess it pays to Google oneself periodically to see what comes up.
February 1, 2009 at 9:10 am
illegal – probably not; unethical – totally. I agree with the general flow of thoughts – you can do what you like with my art (and that includes cutting it into little pieces and gluing them to the wall with rubber cement and dead bugs) but don’t say you represent me and take a profit for yourself.
Makes my skin crawl – I dare say if I met him, I’d probably feel like those Peta-people and want to throw a box of charcoal dust at him or something.
February 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Not sure I have alot to say on what the guy is thinking. My gut instinct is that it is misrepresentation no matter what the motive and sending the guy an email may not be the only route.
I had a brief conversation with Terry not long ago about images of his posted in another person’s blog without credit.
Terry didn’t get a reply from the poster, as you may not contacting this guy… I posted some stuff on facebook but have altered how I would go about this if you want to get yourself removed from his site. Write him first with your argument for remove and ask for a reply within X days. That will be a pseudo-warning shot. If he replies and claims he’s doing nothing wrong or just ignores you… step 2…
See what you can do over his head. It’s a yahoo store.
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html
Section 6 item c:
“You agree to not use the Yahoo! Services to:
impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Yahoo! official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;”
binding section n:
“collect or store personal data about other users in connection with the prohibited conduct and activities set forth in paragraphs a through m above.”
“Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable.”
Basically he has broken the TOS by misrepresenting his association with you. the collection of data is a bit flimsy so not sure you should also use it. The section of his site that claims to be helping artists, etc… and the perception that you are represented are in fact, not true. You might even consider issues where this false representation could cause contractual problems with those who may require exclusivity.
Scroll to section 28 and click the link to report him. It’s a long shot, but if he isn’t playing you can ask Yahoo to enforce the TOS he had to agree to by having them either email the guy to remove the work or doing it by force.
I have found that these companies are little ‘not our problem’ about things but if you make a strong adult argument and give them the impression that you are serious they will usually comply.
In a nutshell, give him the ‘human being’ shot, then bring down the hammer.
February 1, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Shady. Tacky. Bad form, poor taste, zero class.
You are amazing to find the humor in it. I wonder how the other artists he’s bought work from feel about it being shown on his website?
Just thinking…it would be interesting to ask them. Perhaps I will.
On a positive note, your work is gorgeous, I particularly love the encaustics with mixed media.
Cheers,
Samantha
February 1, 2009 at 5:21 pm
mm..i got your letter and as you i saw my painting being resold for much greater money then it was bought from me. i think that after you buy something from a person you can do with it enything you want as long as you don’t harm this person.
it is only my opinion and if you have some interesting developments of this story i will be happy to hear them:)
thank you
Miro
February 1, 2009 at 5:40 pm
to me it isn’t so much the buying and reselling, people buy and sell art all the time, but the point of interest i have is with the way he asked for her bio and artist statement. the manner he chose to display that information results in the allusion of her being both cognizant of and agreeable to being represented by his gallery. currently it seems that so much of becoming an established and collectible artist has as much to do with reputation as it does the work being presented. so if this is a gallery not held in good standing within the community, and it is presenting itself as representing an artist, then that could be a reflection on that artist.
if this business were known clearly as an establishment recognized for buying and reselling art that would have an entirely different distinction than someone claiming to be someone representing artists.
here is the “about us” segment of his website.
http://www.uspacegallery.com/aboutus.html
i am particularly interested in this statement from him:
“Completely dedicated to working with artists who have found the power to pull from their creative center vs what the public may demand, the gallery’s main goal is to focus simply on the artists and the works they create, not trends”
The emphasis is on working with the artist, and is in direct opposition to the experience that steph had with him. It may not be illegal (i too am curious to know) but it is definitely, to borrow a word from a previous poster, tacky.
February 1, 2009 at 6:54 pm
So uh, when are we gonna ride on this fool?
February 1, 2009 at 7:19 pm
yeah Bennett, the legality of posting info that was copied and pasted from my website without my permission, without even my knowledge, and posting it under the guise that the gallery is representing me is exactly the part i wonder about. i’ll keep your offer in mind.
Markie, YOU’RE a smove dude.
Mim Golub, word.
tarabu, if i ever piss you off i hope i remember to wear a respirator.
Charles, i think i remember that whole deal with Terry. ya just never can tell what people are thinking. i really do appreciate your extensively researched reply. it’s good stuff to know and particularly interesting in terms of this discussion. your advice is sage. the initial human approach followed by an axe if step one fails is pretty much the way i operate when determined to get results. in this case if i were to contact the gallery, in addition to what you suggest, i’d be sure to send not only an email, but also an actual letter with some sort of confirmation receipt to have proof it was received and when. and i’d keep a photocopy of the letter for my own records. however, if you go back and reread a bit, you’ll see that i have no intention of contacting him directly about the matter. you’ll also see why. i’d include the details in my reply to you here but it’s all above in the original post and again in my comments and i’m kind of a crappy typist and feeling a little lazy so…
heyhey BigS! thanks for stopping by and leaving your two cents. i dunno if the rest of the work on the site was acquired in the same manner. there’s quite a bit of art on there though and if none of the artists know what’s going on, that would really be something.
miroslav, thanks for your reply. i’ll be sure to post any new developments… although i can’t foresee there being any unless word of this post makes it’s way through the ether to uspace.
toni, as usual, we’re on pretty much the exact same wavelength. we even quoted the same bit from the site. so far, other than a little googling i haven’t done much research about the legalities involved. maybe if i was more keen on wrath and such i’d have found more out by now.
i’m glad i decided to post this here. i’m appreciating hearing what everyone makes of such a peculiar situation.
February 1, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I can certainly understand the surprise that artists might feel when they discover this online shop and their work being sold there. I happened upon the store a month or so ago and discovered that two of my paintings are for sale. Oddly, I felt impressed by the seller’s gumption and resourcefulness rather than upset in any way. When you sit back and think about it, it’s a rather brilliant business move — buying minor pieces of good quality from emerging artists at a steal, and then resell them for several times the original cost.
I’m an art history student with particular interest in art business. A similar network of buying and reselling of artwork has been happening for centuries. Most recently, the New York school of artists (from Mark Rothko, to Willem DeKooning, to Franz Kline, to Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock, and a slew in between) went through somewhat similar circumstances. Wealthy collectors would buy the paintings for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, and, as the popularity of these artists soared virtually overnight, the collectors sold the artworks at auction for hundreds of thousands and even millions… with the artists sitting idly by with dropped-jaws looking at the money being made off of their creations. There are great film clips of DeKooning, I believe it was, at Sotheby’s getting very upset that someone just made a million dollars off of his recently-created work.
Where ethics and misrepresentation come into play is the fact that this Terence fellow is branding himself as a gallery with the implication that the artists that are represented are happily involved with the sale. However, he doesn’t say that explicitly, as far as I can tell… so I’m not sure there’s any incredible wrong-doing here. If he linked to our personal artist’s websites, then I think a lot of the shadiness would go away.
I’m not upset with him, though I can see how someone could be… but then, you shouldn’t sell your work for pennies on the dollar so that he could afford it;)
After selling 500 paintings online, I’ve resigned myself to the fact that some of those paintings have been resold for much more than I sold them, and I find it flattering.
February 2, 2009 at 8:29 pm
ah! i’m happy to hear from someone else who has experienced this. thanks for replying, Chad. before i forget, you mentioned your interest in the business side of art. viewed from that angle, one of the most fascinating contemporary artists has to be Damien Hirst. you may already know all about the auction he organized to bypass the galleries but just in case you don’t here’s a link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/arts/design/15auct.html?fta=y
i can appreciate this uspace thing as slick, unscrupulous business. terence is taking advantage of a new era in marketing. the internet and sites like etsy have provided artists with a direct way to connect with and sell to collectors. we can price work much lower and still make a profit since there’s no fat commission to eat our earnings. this new market means that many would be collectors and investors who, up to this point, lacked the means to dive into buying and selling art can now take the plunge. that’s a good thing. and of course it’s flattering to see your work purchased and revalued at a higher price. isn’t that something most artists hope for?
and so the issue continues to come down to one point. if you purchase art from the artist and then resell it to make a profit, you are an investor, not a gallery. to misrepresent your business in this way is dishonest and unethical. if uspace linked to our sites, they’d risk losing sales. they have a limited supply of art from any given artist. if a customer sees an artist’s work and likes it, you can be sure they’ll follow a link to the artist’s website to see more. chances are pretty good they’ll find something they like at the artist’s site. they’ll find lower prices if they buy directly from the artist, plus they’ll have the satisfaction of knowing their purchase is directly supporting the artist. that’s the first reason why it’s not in uspace’s best interest to link to our sites. the second reason is that if they linked to us, we’d see that they linked and we’d find out they were reprinting info from our sites without permission and falsely claiming to represent us. as illustrated by some of the comments above, that point would not be taken lightly by every artist.
i think it would also be interesting to look at the situation from the perspective of the clients who purchase from the “gallery”. if you were to purchase something from the website believing it to be a gallery “dedicated to supporting the individual artist” and then discovered that the artist whose work you purchased had no idea their work was being “represented” and their information reprinted, would this affect your view of the institution and how? personally, something like that would really disappoint me and piss me off. i’m more likely to support a business (gallery) that i know deals fairly and openly with their employees (artists) and the public. i don’t like being mislead. sloppy analogy: it would feel a little bit like finding out that the fair trade coffee i’ve been buying from the shop down that block had actually been harvested by underpaid, mistreated laborers.
February 2, 2009 at 9:54 pm
“…i dunno if the rest of the work on the site was acquired in the same manner.”
All the “new work”, as it was listed in it’s section on the yahoo ‘gallery’, seems to have been acquired in exactly the same manner. I followed Terence’s etsy feedback and looked at the purchased work, matched them up with the images and sometimes names on the ‘gallery’ site, and in about 25 cases, I even sent a quick heads-up email to the artists including a link to this blog, as well as a link to their work on his site. Terence -ever the entrepreneur- went through a phase early on of buying up tremendous amounts of paper goods- cards mostly, and possibly for resale at the physical gallery location in Atlanta.
Why did I go through all this effort? Frankly I find it to be a fascinating topic and would love to see this guy outed for being so shady. It’s just dishonesty, plain and simple. Taking advantage of artists and inexpensive artwork is heinous. And that’s what he’s doing. So I think the artists involved should know about it. Where you all go from there is up to you.
But I know I would be pissed as hell if it were me being misrepresented and lied about.
February 3, 2009 at 11:05 am
hi Trixy, it find it fascinating as well. thanks for your comments. i wonder what sorts of reactions the people you contacted will have.
February 2, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Ah yes, Damien Hirst. Ironically, I wrote my very last undergrad term paper on him. He’s definitely an artist with a knack for marketing. How about his diamond skull selling for $100 million? Crazy…
This is an interesting debate. I think you should contact this Terrance guy, Stephanie. You should let him know how you feel and offer some suggestions about how he could improve his store. If he would put links to the artists’ websites, I think that would mend a lot of bridges. I believe I know why he hasn’t, but I also know why he should; it would be an act of good faith. As it is right now, all a customer need do is Google the artist’s name to find more information and, in some cases, cheaper works for sale. I always do that before I purchase a new piece of art… it’s good to be an informed buyer.
My thought is that rather than give us 50%, Terrance has already given us 100% of what we were asking. The reason why major galleries don’t purchase emerging artists’ work outright like this is because that poses a very big risk for loss. The central reason for the gallery/artist system structured the way it is now is that the gallery prefers zero risk profitability. If the work doesn’t sell, the gallery isn’t out any capital. The work can simply be returned to the artist. Terrance doesn’t have that luxury. He’s playing a game of chance by buying the work outright and attempting to turn a profit.
I can’t imagine a law that prohibits Terrance’s shop from existing, or from it being billed as a gallery. Galleries aren’t required to provide a 50% share, or to operate on a contractual basis with artists whose work they’ve purchased outright; nor are private sellers. I think the only emotional/ethical issue here is that the store operator is the consignor, rather than the typical scenario of the artist consigning his/her work to the gallery. But this happens with galleries all the time — galleries specializing in antique and vintage artworks, for example, seldom, if ever, include the artist in the mix. Contemporary art is often handled differently in the gallery circuit because the artist is living and attempting to scrounge up buyers and make a profit. But that doesn’t make a contemporary artist’s work immune to being traded and sold without the artist’s involvement. If Terrance is using copyrighted photographs, however, that is a step into illegal territory (i.e. if he copies images from the Etsy page where he purchased the work rather than scan or photograph the work himself).
I wouldn’t be too worried about this guy selling works without contracts with the artists… the contracts are meant to benefit the gallery, not the artist. Contracts so often bind the artist, requiring them to sell only through a particular gallery.
It has been an interesting topic!
February 3, 2009 at 12:41 pm
i agree Chad, it is an interesting debate. that’s exactly the reason i posted it here–i saw potential to spark some real exchange. i’m glad you showed up. thanks for contributing so much!
re: contacting terence
as i’ve said a few times, i am not going to contact terence directly. at this point, my decision stands. i’ve explained already why i decided to post this here in lieu of contacting the “gallery”. firstly, i sincerely see the irony of it as just too perfect. secondly, i find it valuable as a subject for generating discussion here on the blog. if my aim was to change the situation in some way or if i was upset or felt strongly enough about it one way or the other, i would have opted to correspond directly with terence. maybe i’ll feel differently at some point but i sort of doubt it. again, i’m not angry about what he’s done and i don’t mind that he may profit from selling the piece he purchased from me. if you think it’s a good idea to contact him and suggest ideas for improving the shop, i would encourage you to do just that.
i’m starting to wonder if the tone of the letter i included in the original post is being misconstrued. i meant for the letter to carry a certain measure of sarcasm but not vitriol. it was meant to be funny and entertaining in a way that would point out the oddities of the experience. i was actually laughing as i wrote it. sure i could have chosen to be angry and indignant or to get bent out of shape, but i’m far more interested in spurring dialog.
it’s true that galleries don’t purchase artwork outright because doing so would be foolish business practice, but it’s not true that if they don’t sell any of the work they show that they won’t be out any capital. a gallery has to pay for it’s physical space in the form of rent or mortgage. there are heating bills, renovation and repair bills, all the regular costs that come with maintaining any space. plus, the gallery must be constantly kept up in terms of patching and painting the walls. there are employees to pay–preparators to install the work, employees to watch the gallery, make sales and deal with clients and gallery-goers, maybe a curator, someone to do marketing, etc. a serious gallery invests in promotion and advertising to attract large crowds for every exhibit and hopefully gain new clients. for a brick and mortar gallery, there is no such thing as zero risk profitability.
the fact that terence is purchasing work outright suggests that he has the means to do so. Etsy is certainly a great source for art at low prices. and unless you’re paying a webmaster, setting up a website is cheap, and it doesn’t cost much to maintain the site. i spend about 12 bucks a year on mine. so in theory, it would be possible to gradually accumulate a good size collection of work through trolling sites like Etsy without going into debt. a site could then be set up and maintained at very little cost. it wouldn’t take many sales at all before the cost of the website was covered and with the original purchase price being so low, it wouldn’t take nearly as long to turn a profit as it would if you were giving 50% back to the artist. you could even slap a few ads on the site to pull in a few bucks while you work on building a clientele. obviously, none of us know the details but there isn’t necessarily much risk involved in this sort of online venture.
i’m not worried about this guy selling our artworks without having signed contracts. i mention it in the letter in order to describe what one expects when dealing with a gallery and to point out the stark difference with what occurred in my experience with uspace–the experience i didn’t know i was having
. and i would argue that contracts are there to protect both parties. both parties have to agree to acceptable terms. yep, often the artist agrees to deal only through that particular gallery, but the gallery agrees in turn to promote that artist and it’s in the galleries best interest to promote and sell the work since art sales are their source of revenue.
i dunno enough about copyright and i don’t know whether or not terence is using photos copied from our websites. i haven’t checked. i do know that he is using text copied from directly my website without having asked my permission. if i had more knowledge about the legalities of this stuff i’d really enjoy taking about that part as well. as it stands, i honestly don’t have enough of an understanding of what’s legal and what’s illegal to engage in an intelligent conversation on that end. it would be interesting if someone who had that sort of knowledge showed up. i am glad to be made aware of how little i know about it though. it’s an indicator that i should make an effort to find out more.
February 3, 2009 at 1:00 pm
You may be trying to point out the oddities of the experience, Stephanie, but the tenor of this post’s title, “Art scam or Ignorance,” followed by the person’s full address and personal correspondences, made me think you were fairly upset…
However, it would be a cleaner debate if it were more anonymous, I think. But you’ve called specific parties out here. It’s your prerogative, but I don’t think I’d be alone in suggesting that this would likely be better handled in a private conversation with the party you take issue with.
An anonymous email directed me to this post, BTW, which I also thought was kind of odd.
February 3, 2009 at 3:18 pm
well Chad you’re entitled to your opinion. but you’ve misinterpretted my intentions.
check again, i didn’t include the full address. the PO box is missing. and uspace includes their address on their website so i’m not doing anything sketchy by including it here.
the full title is Art Scam or Ignorance: an accidental exhibit
Or Ignorance covers the possibility that terence doesn’t see any sort of negative issue with what he’s doing, that he may very well not be intentionally misleading people. an accidental exhibit covers the absurdity of the situation. also, i stated in the original post that i was amused by the whole thing and that it kind of made me giggle.
you are failing to appreciate the irony of my decision to post this out in the open without contacting uspace. the parallel here is that he posted my art and info without contacting me. my response is to post this blog entry. it’s ironic. to me, it’s funny. i have presented the facts and given my opinions. i’ve invited others to do the same. i welcome any debate, discussion or comments of any kind as long as they don’t turn unacceptably rotten and yes, since i am the author, i get to decide where that line falls. so far, i’d say no one has crossed that line.
i don’t think it would have been a particularly interesting post if i had presented it as a hypothetical situation or if i had left out the links. i think going about it that way would have been kind of insipid. if i’d done that, i doubt many people would have even commented. you and i likely wouldn’t have had the opportunity for this exchange. i agree, it is odd that you were directed here by an anonymous email. i assumed either you were a reader of D’Arte Board or you stumbled onto the post by chance. but i’m glad you ended up here just the same as i think we’ve had a pretty good discussion. and since my goal was to open a conversation and to find what others think of the whole thing, i’m happy about my decisions.
February 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm
oh! i wonder if someone sent Miroslav an anonymous email, too and that’s what he meant by “i got your letter.” i figured he was referring to having read the letter i included in my post. hmmn…
February 3, 2009 at 9:37 pm
That was me sending the emails directing certain artists to this site and the ‘gallery’- through etsy, like I stated above, I contacted approx 25 artists from Terences’ feedback after matching them up with photos of the artwork on his gallery site.
February 4, 2009 at 12:15 pm
mystery solved!
February 8, 2009 at 2:05 pm
umm actually, thanks for contacting me. that was really awesome of you.
since i dont know how to use the internet and all the things on it so well i saw what you sent me on etsy and thought it was the guy who bought my work sending it to me.
I was confused because i didnt think he was really aloud to re-list and sell it with out telling me first, but i figured since he showed me he did it and my name was represented as the artist i wasnt going to start anything about it.
upon later inspection of the link to the site sent to me i found the e-mail message that shows that it wasnt him who sent me the link. it was someone who thought what he was doing was wrong and was helping me out.
this of course made me really mad, and thankful that someone took the time to show me.
i sold him a piece for $8 and he was going to try selling it for $65?! and he was not going to tell me about it.
im really happy about him putting my work out there and giving value to it, i just would have loved if he told me.
jeeeez
February 13, 2009 at 7:26 am
I think you should send him a bill for 50% of his asking price…