Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Gamut Control, Whose Reproductions Are They?

UPDATED: December 4, 2008 Originally posted April 7, 2008

NOTE: (This monograph was updated on December 4, 2008 with the addition of copies of November 9-10, 2007 email correspondence to and from Fine Art Registry's David Phillips and copies of April 7, 2008 email correspondence to and from Fine Art Registry's Theresa Franks. The original April 7, 2008 monograph contained a brief reference to Fine Art Registry's association with Gamut Control but was removed, as noted below, upon request from Theresa Franks when this scholar was informed FAR was no longer associated with Gamut Control.)



















 

“It is further understood that any work performed by Gamut or any of Gamut’s affiliations will be the sole property and ownership of Gamut including any and all copyrights.” 
Gamut Control Price List
Gamut Control Price List MSRP.jpg (JPEG Image, 825x1064 pixels)

Text (detail) Gamut Control Price List

WHO IS GAMUT CONTROL? 
That is answered by Gamut Control on their www.gamutcontrol.com/printing.htm website under the subtitle: "Printing." In part, it states: "Printing the highest quality artwork is what Gamut Control is all about. - Now Gamut Control is pleased to introduce the next generation of art reproduction technology."

Artwork is created by an artist. Reproductions are copies not created by artists. It would seem, Gamut Control would have everyone believe they are the same thing.

THE COACHMAN
Unfortunately, Gamut Control reminds me of The Coachman in the old 1940 Disney classic movie Pinocchio. As you may know, the movie is the story of a wooden puppet named Pinocchio who desperately wants to become a real little boy. In his journey to become human, Pinocchio comes across The Coachman’s hench men Honest John and Gideon who lure him to Pleasure Island to eat whatever he wishes and create havoc all day when the true and sinster purpose is to turn wayward boys into donkeys for sale. (Source: Wikipedia)

Fortunately, for all us, including myself, who have seen the movie as a child, it has a happy ending where Pinocchio escapes to eventually become a real little boy.

Rhetorically speaking, would those artists who do business with Gamut Control, much less the public, be so lucky?

Let’s see.

ARTWORK SO PRECISE THE ARTIST'S CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE
In the Gamut Control’s
www.gamutcontrol.com/gallery.htm, it states; "What makes Gamut Control's 'next generation' reproduction technology so special? - This is new technology, cutting edge. Remember when Lithography was new? Remember what those limited editions sold for and what they are worth now? We have the next, new, appreciating in value, artwork. Gamut Control is the first company to offer: * Next Generation Technology * Artwork so precise the artists can't tell the difference * Numbered in limited runs (300) * Signed Certificates of Authenticity *Online registration and tracking to insure Authenticity."

Artwork is created by an artist and reproductions are copies not created by artists. Again, Gamut Control would have everyone believe that "reproduction" and "artwork" are interchangeable.

ASSISTS ARTIST IN REGISTERING THEIR ART
In the Gamut Control's published March 15, 2008 Volume: 1, Issue 1 Gamut Control Corner newsletter, it states: "After learning the requirements and details of the Laws of Multiples in various states, the true legalities of copyright protection, the prevalence of fakery and forgery and the need for complete protection, Gamut Control has chosen to change our methodologies with regard to securing protection. We will now offer, as a first line of defense, registration with the US Library of Congress through the US Copyright Office. - This service is free to all of our artists from Gamut Control with the exception of the registration fee with the Library of Congress which is $45 per painting or $45 for a collection of paintings which are marketed by Gamut Control as a special edition."

Artwork is created by an artist and reproductions are copies not created by artists. So, an artist may register their artwork with the U. S. Copyright Office but only Gamut Control can register their reproductions of that artwork with the U. S. Copyright Office.

This perspective is confirmed by U. S. Copyright Law
103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works which, in part, states: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”

In layperson’s terms, the artist may own the copyright to their painting that Gamut Control may generously assist them in registering with the U.S. Copyright Office but the Gamut Control would own the copyright to the derivatives ie. giclee reproductions they reproduce from the artist’s registered painting.

So, if you are going to lock the door, make sure the fox is not already in the hen house.

Just in case, your not convinced these derivatives ie. reproductions are owned by Gamut Control, let's once again quote from Gamut Control's own jpeg file titled "MSRP Price Lists" posted on their http://www.gamutcontrol.com/downloads.htm website.

ANY WORK PERFORMED BY GAMUT - OWNS - ANY AND ALL COPYRIGHTS
In small type at the bottom of the page in their "MSRP Price Lists," Gamut Control states: “It is further understood that any work performed by Gamut or any of Gamut’s affiliations will be the sole property and ownership of Gamut including any and all copyrights.”

So, if Gamut Control constantly commingles the terms reproduction and artwork throughout their published literature as if they are the same thing and interchangeable, couldn't that possibly confuse the artist, much less the public?

Then if you add Gamut Control's generous offer to help register the artist's copyright for their artwork, might the artist think that registration covers not only their artwork but Gamut Control's so-called "artwork" ie. reproductions that they reproduced?

Then some day Gamut Control may decide to reproduce more from digital files of the artist's artwork or may go bankrupt and those who acquire the company and the digital files of the artist's artwork may decide to reproduce more or one of the employees of Gamut Control or future owners' employees may decide to reproduce more without telling the company violating the company's copyright but one thing is for sure it won't be violating the artist's copyright because it wasn't ever the artist's reproductions to begin with.

There goes the so-called "Limited Edition," along with the artist's reputation, much less their credibility.

You see, under U.S. Copyright Law, the printer, in this case Gamut Control, who reproduced the work would only be contractually obligated to give the artist what they paid for. The artist paid for 300 reproduction, they get 300 reproductions. All the overruns, plates, negatives, digital files and the like the printer produced would be theirs and if they chose to they could make more reproductions without the permission, much less the knowledge of the artist.

PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS
This perspective is confirmed by the Printing Industries of America, Inc. in their published Printing Trade Customs, which, in part, states: “6. PREPARATORY MATERIALS Working mechanical art, type, negatives, positives, flats, plates, and other items when supplied by the printer, shall remain his exclusive property unless otherwise agreed in writing.”

GICLEES ARE SUPERIOR TO TRADITIONAL LITHOGRAPHY
Then to add insult to injury, Gamut Control, on their www.gamutcontrol.com/faq.htm website, states: “giclee (zhee-clay), is an individual produced, reproduction... Giclees are superior to traditional lithography.”

As an artist who creates lithographs, I speak from experience that lithographs are original works of visual art created by an artist that would -never- be trivialized as reproductions.

U.S. CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
This perspective is confirmed in U.S. Customs’ “April 2004 Works of Art, Collector's Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property - An Informed Compliance Publication. ” In part, it states: "The expression "original engravings, prints and lithographs" means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process."

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?
On page 350 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques, the term -reproduction- is defined as: “A general term for any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art or of a photograph, done in the same medium as the original or in another, and done by someone other than the creator of the original.”

U.S COPYRIGHT LAW - RIGHTS OF ATTRIBUTION
Furthermore, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A. Rights of Attribution - “shall not apply to any reproduction.”

So, to commingle giclee reproductions done by someone other than the artist with original works of visual art such as lithographs created by an artist as if they were the same exposes, at best, an extreme lack of connoisseurship by Gamut Control.

WHAT IS CONNOISSEURSHIP?
In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, -connoisseurship- is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”

Additionally, Gamut Control, on their www.gamutcontrol.com/faq.htm website, asks the question: “How long will these {giclees} last?” with the following answer: “We guarantee they will last 110 years, under normal conditions.”

Aside what would be considered “normal conditions”, and aside what documentation does Gamut Control offer to confirm their “guarantee,” what does “last 110 years” really mean?

GICLEE - THE BEST OR WORST REPRODUCTION PROCESS
Unfortunately, a real concern for “giclee” reproductions is the lightfastness issue. In otherwords, is the so-called -GICLEE- technology the best or the worst reproduction process in the industry?

INKS OR DYES
The giclee reproduction technology up till recently only used water-based “dyes” (animal, vegetable or aniline). How can you determine if the giclee reproduction has been reproduced using water-based dyes?

The answer is do the printer, gallery or artist recommend not getting the image wet? Dyes can run if they get wet. (Inks, when dry, do not.) Or do they recommend a protective coating which is another red flag to protect the water-based dyes from running, much less assist in its’ lightfastness.

On the other hand, recent technological advances in grinding ink (mineral) down to 4 micons and coating them with clear polyuthyrene allows them to use the same printers to reproduce without clogging the jets which would happen immediately with normal ink. So, by using clear polyuthyrene coated inks, the image once dry will not run if the image should somehow get wet.

LIGHTFASTNESS
The other benefit with the use of ink instead of dyes is the lightfastness.

In October 1996, Art Calendar devoted almost an entire published issue to giclee reproduction. The lightfastness issue of dyes used for giclee reproduction were documented from the testing from Group Leader, R&D Paste Inks, Handschy Industries Charles Lakie. In reference to digital dye-based reproductions ie. “giclee,” Charles Lakie wrote: “The difference in fade resistance can be compared to a car (Mel’s Litho) vs. a cereal box (digital editions). The car’s color can withstand any earthly environment and the color will still be there---the color is formulated to last longer than the car itself. The cereal box is formulated to last as long as it takes to put the box of cereal on the store shelves, sell it, put it into a cabinet, take it out only to eat it, and eventually throw it away. There is a minimal exposure to any type of light, so cheaper pigments are used. However, if by chance the box ended up outdoors under the same conditions as a car, the colors would disappear from the box -- this would take anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks.”

So, whether -GICLEES- are lightfast or not, they are, at best, -REPRODUCTIONS-.

GAMUT CONTROL INTRODUCES REPRODUCTIONS AS ARTWORK
So, why does Gamut Control CEO John McCormic, on his www.gamutcontrol.com/ceointro.htm website, state: “Our mission is to introduce the world to new artists and artwork by providing quality reproductions, utilizing cutting edge technology, employing the best marketing practices and being able to offer their Limited Editions artwork at affordable prices.”

What are we to make of anyone, much less a Gamut Control’s CEO John McCormic, who offers “reproductions” of the artist’s artwork then in the same sentence morphs them into “their Limited Editions artwork,” when they know all along they own the copyright to those derivatives they reproduced and are only contractual obligated to give the artist what they paid for?

In closing, from my experience and knowledge their is -no- authenticity for reproductions since by definition and law the artist had nothing to do with their reproduction, aside paying for them. Now you could educate the artists to get those reproduction rights reassigned back in writing from the printer to them. After the fact, the printer would probably argue for more money for return of those rights. (Note: if the printer returns those reproduction rights back to the artist, all reproductions, overruns or not, more than the -paid in full- contract would be owned by the artist. Now, ask the printer to hand them over to the artist at no cost and see a firestorm erupt.) Before the fact of having reproductions made, the artist would have the leverage (to spend or not to spend) and from my experience the printer will reassign those rights back to the artist, in a heart beat, if they knew to ask. Most printers just want your money.

So, if an artist, much less anybody, doesn't know their rights, they have -none-.




CORRESPONDENCE (to and from FAR's David Phillips): 

11/10/07 11:21 PM
Subj: Re: The Fox & The Hen
Date: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:28:44 AM From: dphillips@fineartregistry.com
To: -Gary Arseneau-

Thank you very much,
David


On Nov 10, 2007, at 1:14 AM, -Gary Arseneau- wrote:

November 9, 2007

David Phillips
dphillips@fineartregistry.com
(206) 420-8341

Dear Mr. Phillips:

Several weeks ago, I copied, off Google News, the Newswire’s published October 16, 2007 “Authenticity & Provenance Now Guaranteed for Next Generation Limited Edition Prints - Giclees” release to read over carefully later not realizing till now that it was associated with Fine Art Registry and you.

A very -Small World-, isn’t it?

After carefully reading over the Newswire release, I logged onto and reviewed Gamut Control’s www.gamut control.com website. If I may, let me share with you and your colleagues, what I have discovered.

GAMUT CONTROL, THE COACHMAN
Respectfully, Gamut Control reminds me of The Coachman in the old 1940 Disney classic movie Pinocchio. As you may know, the movie is the story of a wooden puppet named Pinocchio who desperately wants to become a real little boy. In his journey to become human, Pinocchio comes across The Coachman’s hench men Honest John and Gideon who lure him to Pleasure Island to eat whatever he wishes and create havoc all day when the true and sinster purpose is to turn wayward boys into donkeys for sale. Fortunately, for all us, including myself, who have seen the movie as a child, it has a happy ending where Pinocchio escapes to eventually become a real little boy. (Source: Wikipedia)

Rhetorically speaking, would those artists who do business with Gamut Control, much less the public, be so lucky?

Let’s see.

LIMITED EDITION ARTWORK AT AFFORDABLE PRICES
In the Gamut Control’s Gamut_Control_NGB_ Trifold PDF file, aside the above title, it states: “Our Philosophy is very simple: ‘Contract the very best artwork, create the highest quality reproductions, market through reputable sources to offer fine art at a fare price.”

First, -red flag-, artwork” reproduced by Gamut Control and then those “reproductions” are marketed as “fine art.”

ASSISTS ARTIST IN REGISTERING THEIR ART Additionally, in the Gamut_Control_NGB_Trifold PDF file, it states: “Gamut Control’s in-house legal dept. assists artist in registering their art with {the] Library of Congress for additional protection.”

Second, -red flag-, under “103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (b)The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”

In layperson’s terms, the artist may own the copyright to their painting that Gamut Control may generously assist them in registering with the U.S. Copyright Office but the Gamut Control would own the copyright to the derivatives ie. giclee reproductions they reproduce from the artist’s registered painting.

So, Gamut Control may be generously assisting the artist register their artwork but that is a red herring when it comes to the Gamut Control reproduced derivatives ie. reproductions they, by law, own the copyright to. (Note: Are these the same Gamut Control’s derivatives ie. reproductions being registered at Fine Art Registry but registered as whose reproductions, Gamut Control who owns them or the artists who don’t?)

Just in case, your not convinced these derivatives ie. reproductions are owned by Gamut Control, they know it and admit it.

GAMUT CONTROL OWNS ALL COPYRIGHTS TO DERIVATIVES
This is documented in the Gamut Control’s Photos to Art JPEG file for “Pricing 2007.” In smaller lettering by half than used for the listed prices, it states: “It is further understood that any work performed by Gamut or any of Gamut’s affiliations will be the sole property and ownership of Gamut including any and all copyrights.”

In other words, under U.S. Copyright Law, the printer, in this case Gamut Control, who reproduced the work would only be contractually obligated to give the artist what they paid for. The artist paid for 300 reproduction, they get 300 reproductions. All the overruns, plates, negatives, digital files and the like the printer produced would be theirs and if they chose to they could make more reproductions without the permission, much less the knowledge of the artist.

PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS This perspective is confirmed by the Printing Industries of America, Inc. in their published Printing Trade Customs, which, in part, states: “6. PREPARATORY MATERIALS Working mechanical art, type, negatives, positives, flats, plates, and other items when supplied by the printer, shall remain his exclusive property unless otherwise agreed in writing.”

So, now what are we to make of Gamut Control’s
Gamut_Control_NGB_Trifold PDF file, when it states: “one of our strategic partners, Fine Art Registry, helps us to give our limited edition giclees the ultimate protection against unauthorized reproductions.”

If you are going to lock the door, make sure the fox is not already in the hen house. Then to add insult to injury, Gamut Control, on their www.gamutcontrol.com/faq.htm website, states: “giclee (zhee-clay), is an individual produced, reproduction... Giclees are superior to traditional lithography.”

As an artist who creates lithographs, I speak from experience that lithographs are original works of visual art created by an artist that would -never- be trivialized as reproductions.

U.S. CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
This perspective is confirmed in U.S. Customs’ “April 2004 Works of Art, Collector's Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property - An Informed Compliance Publication. ” In part, it states: "The expression "original engravings, prints and lithographs" means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process."

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?
On page 350 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques the term “reproduction” is defined as: “A general term for any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art or of a photograph, done in the same medium as the original or in another, and done by someone other than the creator of the original.”

U.S COPYRIGHT LAW - RIGHTS OF ATTRIBUTION
Furthermore, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A. Rights of Attribution - “shall not apply to any reproduction.” So, to commingle giclee reproductions done by someone other than the artist with original works of visual art such as lithographs created by an artist as if they were the same exposes, at best, an extreme lack of connoisseurship by Gamut Control.

WHAT IS CONNOISSEURSHIP?
In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, “connoisseurship” is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.” Additionally, Gamut Control, on their www.gamutcontrol.com/faq.htm website, asks the question: “How long will these {giclees} last?” with the following answer: “We guarantee they will last 110 years, under normal conditions.” Aside what would be considered “normal conditions”, and aside what documentation does Gamut Control offer to confirm their “guarantee,” what does “last 110 years” really mean?

GICLEE THE BEST OR WORST REPRODUCTION PROCESSES
Unfortunately, a real concern for “giclee” reproductions is the lightfastness issue. In otherwords, is the so-called -GICLEE- technology the best or the worst reproduction process in the industry?

INKS OR DYES
The giclee reproduction technology up till recently only used water-based “dyes” (animal, vegetable or aniline). How can you determine if the giclee reproduction has been reproduced using water-based dyes?

The answer is do the printer, gallery or artist recommend not getting the image wet? Dyes can run if they get wet. (Inks, when dry, do not.) Or do they recommend a protective coating which is another red flag to protect the water-based dyes from running, much less assist in its’ lightfastness.

On the otherhand, recent technological advances in grinding ink (mineral) down to 4 micons and coating them with clear polyuthyrene allows them to use the same printers to reproduce without clogging the jets which would happen immediately with normal ink. So, by using clear polyuthyrene coated inks, the image once dry will not run if the image should somehow get wet.

LIGHTFASTNESS
The other benefit with the use of ink instead of dyes is the lightfastness.

In October 1996, Art Calendar devoted almost an entire published issue to giclee reproduction. The lightfastness issue of dyes used for giclee reproduction were documented from the testing from Group Leader, R&D Paste Inks, Handschy Industries Charles Lakie. In reference to digital dye-based reproductions ie. “giclee,” Charles Lakie wrote: “The difference in fade resistance can be compared to a car (Mel’s Litho) vs. a cereal box (digital editions). The car’s color can withstand any earthly environment and the color will still be there---the color is formulated to last longer than the car itself. The cereal box is formulated to last as long as it takes to put the box of cereal on the store shelves, sell it, put it into a cabinet, take it out only to eat it, and eventually throw it away. There is a minimal exposure to any type of light, so cheaper pigments are used. However, if by chance the box ended up outdoors under the same conditions as a car, the colors would disappear from the box -- this would take anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks.”

So, whether -GICLEES- are lightfast or not, they are, at best, -REPRODUCTIONS-.

GAMUT CONTROL INTRODUCES REPRODUCTIONS AS ARTWORK
So, why does Gamut Control CEO John McCormic, on his www.gamutcontrol.com/ceointro.htm website, state: “Our mission is to introduce the world to new artists and artwork by providing quality reproductions, utilizing cutting edge technology, employing the best marketing practices and being able to offer their Limited Editions artwork at affordable prices.”

What are we to make of anyone, much less a Gamut Control’s CEO John McCormic, who offers “reproductions” of the artist’s artwork then in the same sentence morphs them into “their Limited Editions artwork,” when they know all along they own the copyright to those derivatives they reproduced and are only contractual obligated to give the artist what they paid for?

OUR REPRODUCTIONS - PROTECTION OF THEIR WORK?
Finally, on the Gamut Control’s www.gamutcontrolpublishing.com website, it states: “Creating a strong national and international marketing presence to help promote our fine art is Gamut Publishing’s passion and priority. All our reproductions are secured & registered by the renowned Fine Art Registry. A partnership we are proud to have developed to provide our artist the highest quality protection of their work.”

In closing, from my experience and knowledge their is -no- authenticity for reproductions since by definition and law the artist had nothing to do with their reproduction, aside paying for them. Now you could educate the artists to get those reproduction rights reassigned back in writing from the printer to them. After the fact, the printer would probably argue for more money for return of those rights. (Note: if the printer returns those reproduction rights back to the artist, all reproductions, overruns or not, more than the -paid in full- contract would be owned by the artist. Now, ask the printer to hand them over to the artist at no cost and see a firestorm erupt.) Before the fact of having reproductions made, the artist would have the leverage (to spend or not to spend) and from my experience the printer will reassign those rights back to the artist, in a heart beat, if they knew to ask.

Most printers just want your money. So, if an artist, much less anybody, doesn't know their rights, they have -none-, much less informed choices. I hope the enclosed will empower all to know the choices they have.

Sincerely,

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author
Fernandina Beach, Florida

 [NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]

 CORRESPONDENCE (to and from FAR's Theresa Franks):

From: tfranks@fineartregistry.com
To: -Gary Arseneau-
CC: dcpw@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Gamut Contol & Fine Art Registy, Whose Reproductions Are They?
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:44:45 -0700

Hello, Gary...

Be advised that Gamut Control has been terminated and is banned from the Fine Art Registry web site. All of the quotes you used from the Gamut Control web site that mention Fine Art Registry are neither approved nor are condoned by us and our lawyers have demanded that all references to FAR be removed from the Gamut Control web site.

I respectfully request that you please remove any reference from your blog that makes it appear in any way that FAR and Gamut Control have any kind of connection whatsoever, because we do not.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Kind regards,

Teri Franks
www.FineArtRegistry.com
888-595-2787

[NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]


From: -Gary Arseneau-
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 9:39 PM
To: tfranks@fineartregistry.com
Cc: gchristensen@fineartregistry.com; david@freelancewriterphotographer.com; dankoon1@sbcglobal.net; meiren704454@hotmail.com; corkmarch@earthlink.net; anayat411@aol.com; dphillips@fineartregistry.com
Subject: Gamut Contol & Fine Art Registy, Whose Reproductions Are They?

FYI

Link to: http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2008/04/gamut-control-fine-art-registry-whose.html

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author
Fernandina Beach, Florida

                              [NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]


CORRESPONDENCE (to and from FAR's Theresa Franks):
From: -Gary Arseneau-
To: tfranks@fineartregistry.com
Subject: RE: Gamut Contol & Fine Art Registy, Whose Reproductions Are They?
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:49:43 -0400

April 7, 2008

Teri,

Glad to here it. Gamut Control is really something else.

I warned Phillip months ago but got no response.

As for your request, consider it done.

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author

[NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]


CORRESPONDENCE (to and from FAR's Theresa Franks):

To: -Gary Arseneau-
CC: dcpw@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Gamut Contol & Fine Art Registy, Whose Reproductions Are They?
From: tfranks@fineartregistry.com
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:47:16 +0000

Hi Gary...

Thanks very much for your prompt response. I do so much appreciate your cooperation. Please, if you know of any artists that may have been duped by Gamut Control, please let us know as we are trying to rescue a number of artists that have had the unfortunate experience of crossing paths with them.

Rest assured that FAR is working behind the scenes to help these artists.

FAR is a huge advocate for artists' rights. We do not take abusive and deceptive trade practices against artists lightly and we will do all that we can to prevent it, which is why we took measures to ban Gamut from using FAR.

Thanks so much....

Best,
Teri Franks
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld

[NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]

1 Comments:

Blogger apiannini said...

John C. Golfis has an extensive criminal history related to the art industry. John Golfis is a multiple felon and sex offender who lies to and manipulates artists and hides behind lawyers and companies like Gamut Control to defraud artists. He is a registered sex offender in Texas. I know of a case where Gamut Control sued an indigent artist for 2 million dollars to shut him up when he began to blow the whistle. John C. Golfis and Gamut Control are not to be trusted.

7:43 AM, May 19, 2009  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com