6 ms·
Part of me is fine with convincing art forgeries. It's like calling a PDF copy of a book a "forgery". Well, you got the same information out of it, didn't you?
by pgt 6y ago
Part of me is fine with convincing art forgeries. It's like calling a PDF copy of a book a "forgery". Well, you got the same information out of it, didn't you? If the forgery imparted the same emotion and it's gonna last longer than the original, isn't that a bonus? :)
- paulie_a 6y agoThose are called reproductions and are legal.
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoSometimes legal, if they've gone out of copyright. But nevertheless, this is an important distinction: The reason the reproductions were forgeries is because of the deception involved.
- bserge 6y agoWouldn't this technically fall under copyright infringement? If there were any copyright holders (I assume Da Vinci and Van Gogh's expired a long time ago)... Since they copy someone else's stuff and claim it as the real thing, making money from their sale.
- jaywalk 6y agoNo, it's fraud. You can make and sell the Mona Lisa all day long as long as you're not trying to pass it off as the Mona Lisa by da Vinci.
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoNope. Reproductions are fine, so long as they are out of copyright or if you have permission of the copyright holder. (I don't usually give permission for folks to copy my paintings, but almost always give permission to copy my photos, for example). Copyright itself is different, though: It often means you can't make money off of copyrighted work, but it can just as easily mean that you can't post a reproduction or fan art on social media - but lots of things are out of copyright. Selling a reproduction and passing it off as the original is fraud, and since there is fraud involved, it makes a reproduction a forgery. In general, you use different materials to make a reproduction than you do a forgery as well: A good reproduction might use some materials that folks used in the past, but often mixes it with modern materials. A forger might use things that were never used to trick the tests the experts used and use techniques to make the painting age faster. You could argue that the forger actually is the better craftsman with these distinctions: It is too bad that there is so much deceit involved. I'd buy an honest "forgery" that tricks the experts, but would be angry if someone passes it off as an original.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoNo: it's not like calling a PDF copy of book a "forgery". A forgery is created with intent to deceive. A PDF copy of a book doesn't seek to convince anyone it is an actual book. People have reasons to buy art other than to treat it is a decoration. For some, it is about the feeling of a direct connection to the artist. For others, it's about owning something that's unique, or more prosaically as a store of value.
- glitcher 6y agoI think your book analogy would be much more accurate if the hypothetical forger were to print and bind their own hard copy of the book, and then pass it off as an original printing. Plenty of people are perfectly fine with buying replications of artwork, books, etc., when they know this is the case. Our human nature to place a much higher value on original items is probably more of an emotional response than a logical one.