FINE ART REGISTRY, a Contradiction in Terms, Promises & Connoisseurship

December 8, 2008

NOTE: Updated February 8, 2009 with jpg copies of -How FAR works- and -FAR User Agreement- pages with the above side by side excerpt comparison.

Footnotes are enclosed with { }.

On page 292 of The Random House College Dictionary, -contradiction- is defined as: "a statement that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous."

The Fine Art Registry’s website has three substantial contradictions in terms, promises and connoisseurship. This monograph will document those contradictions.

1) CONTRADICTION OF TERMS

On page 1481 of Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -term- is defined as a: “word or phrase that has a fixed meaning in some field.”

Fine Art Registry registers reproductions.

Many of those Fine Art Registry reproductions are non-disclosed as reproductions and are misleading promoted with this subtitle: “Artwork images are copyright of the artist, registrar or owner.”

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

Under U.S. Copyright Law 103, the “copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”{1}

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law 106 A, “The Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”{2}

In other words, -artwork- is created by the artist and -reproductions- are copies of artwork done by someone other than the artist. They can never be the same, much less interchangeable.

FINE ART GICLEE PRINT

An example of a contradiction of terms on Fine Art Registry’s website (and the artist’s website) is the artist Jane Loveall’s “In The Jungle,” registered on Fine Art Registry’s website and listed as a “Fine Art Giclee Print.”

FAR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY
"Disclaimer. The FAR Certificate of Authenticity alone is not evidence of nor will the work associated with the FAR Certificate of Authenticity be recognized by Fine Art Registry as an official registered work unless the work bears the patented Fine Art Registry ID tag and a permanent record of the art exist in the Fine Art Registry database." (Excerpt from the Jane Loveall's COA for her "Fine Art Giclee print of an original watercolor" titled "In the Jungle." )

NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTION

Jane Loveall’s “In The Jungle” -giclee prints- are actually non-disclosed -reproductions-. This is backhandedly confirmed below the initial description “Fine Art Giclee Print” on Fine Art Registry’s website{3}. In part, it states: "In the Jungle" is a fine art giclee print of an original watercolor painting created by artist Jane Loveall at Studio B, her studio and gallery located in Downtown Fairfield, California. This giclee is printed on Breathing Colors fine art paper. The image size is 12”x 18” and the overall size of the print is 14”x 20 including a 1” white border.” Signed, titled and numbered by the artist in the white border area and on the back. Professional quality materials are used exclusively. This giclee was created using the state-of-the-art Better Light scanning system and printed by a professional Giclee printmaker.”

If you reproduce an original watercolor, you have, at best, reproductions.

The artist Jane Loveall, by admission, is located in the State of California.

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

Under California Civil Code Statutes 1738 to 1745, if someone sells a reproduction for $100 or more you must disclose it as a reproduction. Failure to do so may include but not limited to, refund, interest, treble damages, court cost, attorney fees and $1,000 fine per occurrence.

BETTER LIGHT INC. REPRODUCTIONS

As for the Better Light Inc. company, also located in the State of California, that reproduced Jane Loveall’s artwork, they post on their website the following question and answer: “Q: What do I need to use a scanning back for fine-art reproduction? A Better Light scanning back is among the finest ways to capture fine art originals for reproduction.”{4}

BETTER LIGHT INC. OWN THEIR REPRODUCTIONS

Additionally, Better Light Inc. company clearly understands their rights under U.S. Copyright when they posted on their website the following: “Copyright 2004-2008 Better Light, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of text or photographs from this web site without the written permission of Better Light, Inc. is strictly prohibited.”{5}

In other words, under U.S. Copyright Law, reproductions cannot be “attributed” to a living artist, much less a dead one.

Subsequently, any “derivatives” ie., reproductions of an artist's original artwork and those reproduction rights, under U.S. Copyright Law, would be owned by the printer who reproduced it.

Therefore, unless the artist had those “reproduction rights” reassigned in writing back to them from the "printer" who reproduced them, those same individuals would have the right to reproduced more without the permission or knowledge of the artist.

There potentially goes a so-called -limited edition-.

Of course, if the artist understood their rights under U.S. Copyright Law and had all “reproductions rights” reassigned back to them from these individuals who reproduced their original artwork, then that would be a written admission that they knew from the very beginning that they were “reproductions” and not “works of visual art.”

This perspective is confirmed by the PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS{6} published by the Printing Industries of America, Inc. that documents their understanding that if a printer reproduces the work they own the tools ie. plates, negatives and the like used to reproduce it.

So, with reproductions and non-disclosed reproductions being registered on Fine Art Registry’s website, are we just to believe or suspend disbelief when Fine Art Registry states that anyone can make “a permanent record of a work of art you have created or obtained or of a whole collection of art work,” “Collectors {can} buy with the security of knowing that the provenance of the pieces is established and authentic,” “Insurance claims can be made and dealt with in the certainty that the piece of art actually existed and was owned by the person or entity making the claim” and that. “50, 100 or 500 years from now, the provenance of a work of art can be verified on the FAR web site and its history traced”{7}?

Hence, Fine Art Registry’s contradiction of terms.


http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

2) CONTRADICTION OF PROMISES

On pages 1228 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -promise- is defined as the: “manifestation of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified manner, conveyed in such a way that another is justified in understanding that a commitment has been made; a person’s assurance that the person will or will not do something.”

Fine Art Registry makes promises, with or without intent, it cannot keep and in the small print it admits it.

http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php


On Fine Art Registry “How FAR Works” webpage, it states: “You, an artist, collector, gallery or museum decide you want to make a permanent record of a work of art you have created or obtained or of a whole collection of art work.”{8}

Yet, in the small print of their -User Agreement-, Fine Art Registry discloses: “The terms "Art" or "Art Works" used throughout this User Agreement shall be defined as, and include any and all items or objects that may be registered “{9}

Additionally, on Fine Art Registry “How FAR Works” web page, it states: ”You apply the tags, photograph the pieces and register each one on the FAR web site so there is a permanent record in our database with all relevant information.”{10}

Yet, once again, in the small print of their -User Agreement-, Fine Art Registry discloses: “Fine Art Registry™ is a symbol of integrity. As Fine Art Registry makes no guarantee of the accuracy or authenticity of any images or information provided by Registered User/Members.”{11}

Furthermore, on Fine Art Registry “How FAR Works” web page, it states: “Collectors looking for art to buy for their collections can browse the FAR galleries or find work by specific artists and buy with the security of knowing that the provenance of the pieces is established and authentic.”{12}

Yet, Fine Art Registry admits in the small print of their -User Agreement- that: “Fine Art Registry has no control over the authenticity, provenance, safety, legal title, legality of the items advertised, the truth and/or accuracy of the registered works of art or collectibles listed for sale, or sale transactions entered into between prospective buyers and sellers. We cannot ensure nor do we guarantee that the art and/or valuables Registered with and Listed for Sale on Fine Art Registry are authentic in any way, or that the items and/or works are by the hand of a particular artist, maker, or manufacturer.”{13}

Hence, what Fine Art Registry actually offers and gives is, at best, a contradiction in promises.

3) CONTRADICTION OF 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.”{14}

Many of the Fine Art Registry principals and authors, with a few exceptions, have exposed their lack of connoisseurship in their published articles posted on Fine Art Registry’s website.

Here are just five examples:

LIHUA ZHAO

In Fine Art Registry published May 22, 2007 “Replicas and Fakes in the Chinese Art Market” article by Lihua Zhao, the author writes: “In China is it quite common for a painter to reproduce the original artist's work, with the sanction of the original artist who authorizes a limited number of signed reproductions. These are verified by the original artist or a representative as to accuracy and technical accuracy and quality before they can be sold and a certificate is issued which accompanies the painting when it is sold. The reproducing artist signs a contract and sells these works under license. A percentage of the sale usually goes to the original artist. So the Chinese have found a way to satisfy their desire for art in a manner which they can afford.”{15}

REPRODUCTIONS ARE NOT ART

Lihua Zhao writes of some Chinese artists' who authorize chromist (someone who copies artwork) to reproduce their work for a cut of the subsequent sales. The result are, at best, chromist-made reproductions that may satisfy some of the Chinese’ desire for reproductions they can afford but not -art-. as misleadingly stated.

Additionally, Lihua Zahao writes: “More and more Chinese people have begun to accept reproduced or counterfeit works of art which have artistic merit and these find their way into private collections or home decoration. Investment advisors suggest that price and collection value mainly depend on the quantity and the quality of the reproductions. Really high quality reproductions, in fact, promote knowledge and understanding of art and tend to have high investment value.”{16}

NO ARTISTIC MERIT

Whatever the Chinese people are beginning to accept that does not change the fact that reproductions and counterfeit work have -no- artistic merit.

Lihua Zahao commingles art and reproduction as if they are interchangeable, much less the same. Therefore, at best, Lihua Zahao exposes her lack of connoisseurship.

MICHAEL TRANT

In the Fine Art Registry’s published “Demystifying the Print” by Michael Trant, the author wrote: “Reproductions created entirely by the artist’s hand are referred to as "original prints" - The lithograph is a high-resolution print that can be inexpensively produced in large quantities.”{17}

Reproduction by definition is a “copy - of an original work of art - done by someone other than the creator of the original.”{18}

A lithograph is an original work of visual art “wholly executed by hand by the artist” and “excludes any mechanical and photomechanical processes”{19} and would -never- be diminished as being a “high resolution print,” much less “produced in large quantities.”

Not only does this article impeach the connoisseurship of this author but Fine Art Registry whose responsibility it was for vetting it, much less publishing it.

JOHN DAAB

In the Fine Art Registry’s published April 18, 2008 “Fine Art Connoisseurship and its Reckoning Processes, Problems, and Appropriate Role for the Fine Art Connoisseur in the Authentication Process” by John Daab, the author writes: "Fine Art Registry™ is a source for establishing the provenance for works of art.”{20}

Remember, as noted earlier, Fine Art Registry admits in the small print of their -User Agreement- that: “Fine Art Registry has no control over the authenticity, provenance, safety, legal title, legality of the items advertised, the truth and/or accuracy of the registered works of art or collectibles listed for sale, or sale transactions entered into between prospective buyers and sellers. We cannot ensure nor do we guarantee that the art and/or valuables Registered with and Listed for Sale on Fine Art Registry are authentic in any way, or that the items and/or works are by the hand of a particular artist, maker, or manufacturer.”{21}

It would seem, at best, John Daab failed to read the fine print of Fine Art Registry’s -User Agreement-.

Additionally, John Daab writes: “The accuracy of the connoisseurship examination depends on the knowledge and skill of the connoisseur and, to a considerable degree, his or her independence and lack of vested interest in the outcome of the authentication.”{22}

To that point, I say -exactly-.

DAVID PHILLIPS

In Fine Art Registry’s published August 22, 2008 “Artletics, a New Partner for Fine Art Registry” article by David Phillips, the author writes: “As a result, Artletics is our latest partner, which means they are set up to tag and register all of their Limited Edition Exclusive prints and any other products they care to use the system to protect. This means that sports fans that buy Limited Edition Exclusive prints have a unique product in yet another way. It will be uniquely tagged and will be registered in the Fine Art Registry database along with information about the print and the edition. This will protect the edition from being forged or faked in any way and owners will be secure that they have the real thing.”{23}

The “Limited Edition Exclusive by Bruce Stark” titled “New York’s Babe Ruth,” being offered for sale as a "Black and White, Mixed Media, Giclee" at $395 each on Artletic’s website{24}, are actually -non-disclosed- reproduction/posters.

Remember, Fine Art Registry’s User Agreement states: “Fine Art Registry has no control over the authenticity, provenance, safety, legal title, legality of the items advertised, the truth and/or accuracy of the registered works of art or collectibles listed for sale, or sale transactions entered into between prospective buyers and sellers. We cannot ensure nor do we guarantee that the art and/or valuables Registered with and Listed for Sale on Fine Art Registry are authentic in any way, or that the items and/or works are by the hand of a particular artist, maker, or manufacturer.”{25}

To learn more about this particular contentious issue of authenticity, link to: THE REAL THING?, Artletic & Fine Art Registry’s AV...

THERESA FRANKS

In the Fine Art Registry’s published January 14, 2008 “Truth in the Fine Art Industry Limited Edition Reproductions” article by Theresa Franks, the author and FAR founder writes: “The Fine Art Registry system of tagging and registering each piece of fine art or other collectible individually with a unique, tamper-evident tag and then registering that piece with a full description and photos lends itself perfectly to putting a halt to the abuses and deceit in the multiples market. If each artist makes a point of ensuring that every single limited edition print that he/she has made or authorized carries the Fine Art Registry tag and is registered in the Fine Art Registry database, both artist and buyers/collectors are protected. This alone adds tremendous legitimacy and value to a limited edition reproduction.”

Yet, once again as noted earlier, Fine Art Registry founder’s own website's -User Agreement- contradicts her when it states: “Fine Art Registry has no control over the authenticity, provenance, safety, legal title, legality of the items advertised, the truth and/or accuracy of the registered works of art or collectibles listed for sale, or sale transactions entered into between prospective buyers and sellers. We cannot ensure nor do we guarantee that the art and/or valuables Registered with and Listed for Sale on Fine Art Registry are authentic in any way, or that the items and/or works are by the hand of a particular artist, maker, or manufacturer.”{26}

Hence, the Fine Art Register's founder and some of its' authors have serious contradictions in connoisseurship.

CONCLUSION

Fine Art Registry’s contradictions in terms, promises and connoisseurship, documented in this monograph, seriously undermines any confidence that they can deliver on their -FAR® Tag Technology and Permanent Online Registry for Art and Collectibles-, much less on their -Fine Art Registry™ Investigative Reports-.

Also link to:

• Gamut Control, Whose Reproductions Are They?

FOOTNOTES:
1) § 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, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

2) § 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity37 (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art — (1) shall have the right — (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction.

3) http://www.fineartregistry.com/art_details.php?aid=68844

4) http://www.betterlight.com/faq_sales.html?releaseID=18

5) http://www.betterlight.com/history.html

6) PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS Printing Industries of America, Inc. 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.

7) http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

8) http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

9) http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

10) http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

11) http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

12) http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

13) http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

14) rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/teach/eah/ImageServe

15) http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/zhao_lihua/art-fakes-chinese.php

16)Ibid

17) http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/trant_michael/art-prints.php

18} p. 350, The Harper Collins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer, ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)

19)http://cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/icp061.ctt/icp061.pdf.

20)http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-education/fine-art-connoisseur.php

21) http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

22)http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-education/fine-art-connoisseur.php

23)http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-appreciation/artletics-sports-collecting.php

24) http://www.artletics.com/view.php?proid=874

25) http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

26) Ibid