Patsy's Art Work

[joeskidbeck]

These are the ones I was talking about

Thanks, Madeleine. Surely she didn't try to copy Picasso? lol

 

[CathyR]

Except they are ripping off artists. Would you care if someone went into your bank account, without your permission, and took money at will...even if it was supposedly going to a charity? It's the same thing. And the Ramseys have had "foundation" troubles before.

If artist sued everyone who "copied" them they courts would be filled. Almost every teacher/student in most art classes given and all the paint by the TV Bob Ross followers would be food for fodder. My mother-in-law would owe a certain "painter of light" millions even though her work isn't even close in detail to his. The artists copied have said they don't care, they can see she may have used the same theme but their work is much more detailed and frankly better. The artist don't feel threatened by her work usurping their originals.

Like I said as long as the money goes to charity....... have any info that it isn't. Please share. To set up a foundation like that then siphon off funds would be illegal and prosecutable. Hey if you can't get them for murder......
Al Capone wasn't convicted of being a mobster, tax evasion got him.

 

[CathyR]

I, for one, don't hate Patsy or John. I'm also not their spiritual judge. What I hate is the fact that JonBenet's life and innocence was stolen from her and not one person who supposedly loved her has stood up for justice. Not one. I am a grandmother and I know in my heart that if someone murdered one of my grandchildren, I could not rest till that person was found and punished. I can't imagine what it would be like knowing (or even suspecting) that one or both of their parents were responsible. But I do know this: If it happened and you don't hear me screaming for justice, it's because I KNOW that one of the parents is responsible and I'm covering it up to protect them.
The deafening silence of JonBenet's grandparents and aunts, who by all accounts, worshipped her, screams of parental involvement.

As a grandmother I'd be first in line to kick the butt of one of my kids had I an inkling of suspicion. No protection of my kids or their spouses, grandchild trumps them every time. Do you know of any statements made to the press by any other family member besides her sister Pam? Please post links if you can.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

If artist sued everyone who "copied" them they courts would be filled. Almost every teacher/student in most art classes given and all the paint by the TV Bob Ross followers would be food for fodder. My mother-in-law would owe a certain "painter of light" millions even though her work isn't even close in detail to his. The artists copied have said they don't care, they can see she may have used the same theme but their work is much more detailed and frankly better. The artist don't feel threatened by her work usurping their originals.

Like I said as long as the money goes to charity....... have any info that it isn't. Please share. To set up a foundation like that then siphon off funds would be illegal and prosecutable. Hey if you can't get them for murder......
Al Capone wasn't convicted of being a mobster, tax evasion got him.

And as I pointed out earlier, artists are known for practicing by copying other people's work. But they don't turn around and sell it on a website, claiming it as the work of one person when in fact it is a copy of someone else's work. To my knowledge only one artist has been approached about Patsy copying her work. She was okay with it at that time but she was okay with the copying. Nothing was said about her being okay with the work being sold on a website without her even getting credit.

I am a little surprised that this matter is being viewed in such a blasé manner here by sleuthers. There is potential fraud here. If the original artists have not given their permission for this site to sell this work, then laws are being broken.

And again, I doubt anyone would be "okay" with someone going into their bank account and taking out money, so long as the money went to charity. Or what if someone came into your house, took your tv and sold it. Would that be okay, so long as the money went to charity? So why is this any different? It is theft, pure and simple, if the artists have not agreed to it. And there is nothing on that site to indicate the artists have given their blessings to this.

ETA: I have an artist friend who I've asked to look at the site and this thread and give her opinion as to laws potentially broken, how to proceed if laws are being broken, etc.

 

[Tadpole12]

I am a little surprised that this matter is being viewed in such a blasé manner here by sleuthers. - MTM


Nah, ..... MTM

Plagerism?
copy art?

I wonder, what kinda judgement decides that PR's 'works' will be displayed as such, online, on the foundation site.
Makes you wonder, about her creative license, and if she's ever worked in black and white.

 

[CathyR]

And as I pointed out earlier, artists are known for practicing by copying other people's work. But they don't turn around and sell it on a website, claiming it as the work of one person when in fact it is a copy of someone else's work. To my knowledge only one artist has been approached about Patsy copying her work. She was okay with it at that time but she was okay with the copying. Nothing was said about her being okay with the work being sold on a website without her even getting credit.

I am a little surprised that this matter is being viewed in such a blasé manner here by sleuthers. There is potential fraud here. If the original artists have not given their permission for this site to sell this work, then laws are being broken.

And again, I doubt anyone would be "okay" with someone going into their bank account and taking out money, so long as the money went to charity. Or what if someone came into your house, took your tv and sold it. Would that be okay, so long as the money went to charity? So why is this any different? It is theft, pure and simple, if the artists have not agreed to it. And there is nothing on that site to indicate the artists have given their blessings to this.

ETA: I have an artist friend who I've asked to look at the site and this thread and give her opinion as to laws potentially broken, how to proceed if laws are being broken, etc.

The only problem is the prosecution of who...... those who are selling the art as Patsy can't be prosecuted seeing as to the fact she is dead.
The artist may not want to get embroiled in such a messy lawsuit with a foundation that is for charity. It makes them look bad no matter what.
I would ask a lawyer not an artist if copyright laws are being broken. I am not a lawyer but I think any litigation would be considered a civil case not a criminal one.
Comparing a bank account or the theft of household items is not the same. I don't know who came up with some of the theories and scenarios posted here. I don't always "quote" the poster and could be accused of plagiarism as it is not my original thought. Am I breaking any laws?
What about all the actresses that pose over a street grate blowing up their dress "copying" that famous Marilyn Monroe picture. Are they breaking the law?
I think you will be disappointed in what a lawyer would tell you about this. Once something becomes "famous" many will copy it and the copiers are protected as the copy is only a copy of a theme and no one can own themes or copyright them.
That would mean only Fredrick Remington can paint "cowboy" pictures and only Ansel Adams can photograph national parks and outdoor take your breath away scenes. Do you see what I'm saying.
If Patsy signed her art and didn't forge someone else's name I think she is covered.
Like stated before by someone else the paintings are pricey and whoever is buying them is more likely buying them because Patsy painted them not because they are so good.
They would not have bought the "original" as the reason they bought it in the first place has nothing to do with the original artist. The artist didn't lose anything as they (the buyer) didn't want an original piece of theirs they wanted a painting from a potential child killer. Different reasons to purchase a piece of art. The original artist can't prove they were "damaged".

I could see a lawsuit being reasonable if someone said..... I hate the original artist of this piece so I am going to commission someone else to copy it so the original artist doesn't get the sale. Under those circumstances I could see that as an artist being ripped off but being able to prove it in court is another matter.
The laws covering art and the "ownership of original ideas" are not as cut and dried as we may like to think.

 

[ziggy]

You're right, Dodie. She didn't hold any resentment but Patsy did not ask her about copying her work either. It makes me wonder if the other artists are aware they were copied and if they gave her permission.

I absolutely love the original artists reaction and her kind words. I wish there were more people like that in this world who exhibit such grace.

The artist did state that it is common practice for "beginners" to look at other artists' work they like and try to copy it for practice. OF COURSE Patsy's version is not going to be as good; she was a novice...and perhaps she had talent but not really the gift but who cares?

My main point in quoting your post is that beginner artists are not in the habit of calling the original artist and asking if they can use their work for practice; and practice sometimes includes signing the painting as your own.

Thank God for the grace of the artist; she understands. I long for that type of grace here many times.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

The only problem is the prosecution of who...... those who are selling the art as Patsy can't be prosecuted seeing as to the fact she is dead.
The artist may not want to get embroiled in such a messy lawsuit with a foundation that is for charity. It makes them look bad no matter what.
I would ask a lawyer not an artist if copyright laws are being broken. I am not a lawyer but I think any litigation would be considered a civil case not a criminal one.
Comparing a bank account or the theft of household items is not the same. I don't know who came up with some of the theories and scenarios posted here. I don't always "quote" the poster and could be accused of plagiarism as it is not my original thought. Am I breaking any laws?
What about all the actresses that pose over a street grate blowing up their dress "copying" that famous Marilyn Monroe picture. Are they breaking the law?
I think you will be disappointed in what a lawyer would tell you about this. Once something becomes "famous" many will copy it and the copiers are protected as the copy is only a copy of a theme and no one can own themes or copyright them.
That would mean only Fredrick Remington can paint "cowboy" pictures and only Ansel Adams can photograph national parks and outdoor take your breath away scenes. Do you see what I'm saying.
If Patsy signed her art and didn't forge someone else's name I think she is covered.
Like stated before by someone else the paintings are pricey and whoever is buying them is more likely buying them because Patsy painted them not because they are so good.
They would not have bought the "original" as the reason they bought it in the first place has nothing to do with the original artist. The artist didn't lose anything as they (the buyer) didn't want an original piece of theirs they wanted a painting from a potential child killer. Different reasons to purchase a piece of art. The original artist can't prove they were "damaged".

I could see a lawsuit being reasonable if someone said..... I hate the original artist of this piece so I am going to commission someone else to copy it so the original artist doesn't get the sale. Under those circumstances I could see that as an artist being ripped off but being able to prove it in court is another matter.
The laws covering art and the "ownership of original ideas" are not as cut and dried as we may like to think.

It doesn't matter that Patsy is dead...the people who are selling her artwork as originals are responsible.

Their work is the artist's bread and butter. To copy it, claim it as your own (or claim it as original work of someone other than the actual artist) and sell it as such is theft, pure and simple...just like copying a book is plagiarism. Not sure how that is so hard to grasp. We are not talking about someone copying a "theme." We are talking about someone copying the original. And not only copying the original but using the original title of the work.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I absolutely love the original artists reaction and her kind words. I wish there were more people like that in this world who exhibit such grace.

The artist did state that it is common practice for "beginners" to look at other artists' work they like and try to copy it for practice. OF COURSE Patsy's version is not going to be as good; she was a novice...and perhaps she had talent but not really the gift but who cares?

My main point in quoting your post is that beginner artists are not in the habit of calling the original artist and asking if they can use their work for practice; and practice sometimes includes signing the painting as your own.

Thank God for the grace of the artist; she understands. I long for that type of grace here many times.

If Patsy had only used the painting to "practice", I wouldn't mind either, but these original Patsy Ramsey paintings are selling on a website for what I consider to be high prices. That's not practicing.

 

[CathyR]

It doesn't matter that Patsy is dead...the people who are selling her artwork as originals are responsible.

Their work is the artist's bread and butter. To copy it, claim it as your own (or claim it as original work of someone other than the actual artist) and sell it as such is theft, pure and simple...just like copying a book is plagiarism. Not sure how that is so hard to grasp. We are not talking about someone copying a "theme." We are talking about someone copying the original. And not only copying the original but
.

MY BOLD

The original is called Pals. She called hers Beach Buddies.
No where on the site does the foundation claim her work is original the word original is in reference to the "master copy" size. They are selling prints on canvas and not the "original" ones she painted.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

MY BOLD

The original is called Pals. She called hers Beach Buddies.
No where on the site does the foundation claim her work is original the word original is in reference to the "master copy" size. They are selling prints on canvas and not the "original" ones she painted.

http://www.patsyramseyfoundation.org/gallery.htm
http://www.patsyramseyfoundation.org/
"View her final works..."
I could copy a book called "Friends" and call mine "Chums," claim it as my own and sell it, and it is still plagiarism. But I suspect you realize that.

The site claims this to be PR's work...it does not acknowledge that they are copies of other people's work. "Original" has nothing at all to do with whether or not they are selling off her "original" copies or prints of her "original" copies. But I suspect you know that.

Original refers to who originally painted the scenes....as in "originate." But I suspect you know that too.

 

[DeeDee249]

My daughter is lawyer who practiced Intellectual Property Law at one point. I'll ask her opinion

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Thanks, DeeDee. If this isn't illegal, it's at least unethical as all get-out.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Comments and referenced article from my friend artcat, an artist and art teacher, and one of the most ethical people I know:

mariabrophy.com/philosophy/when-is-it-okay-to-copy-and-sell-another’s-work-plagiarism-and-the-golden-rule.html

From "Is it okay to copy and sell another’s work? Plagiarism and the Golden Rule" by Maria Brophy:

Let me be clear: There is a distinct difference between having your art and style influenced by another’s work and downright copying another’s work and selling it, without permission.

TO HELP YOU LEARN: If you are learning to paint, imitating the paintings of your favorite artist can help you to develop better techniques and to gain inspiration. If you don’t plan on selling these paintings, there’s no ethical issue by doing this.
FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Community beautification projects can benefit from the works of an established artist. Recently we were contacted by a public school asking permission to copy one of Drew’s underwater paintings on the side of a building. We happily gave permission. COLLABORATION OR PARTNERSHIP: Partnering to collaborate on a unique piece of art is exciting. In this case, you have the full participation of the artist that you are working with. An example is of glass artist Kyle Hunter Goodwin. He is extremely talented and is constantly challenging himself with new projects. He asked if he could take Drew’s pirate painting and create a large, glass carving of the image. He offered a percentage of the sale. The result is a great piece of artwork and everyone benefits from the partnership. WHEN YOU GET PERMISSION: If you plan to sell the art that you’re copying or deriving from, always ask permission and give the artist written credit. Offering to pay them a percentage of your earnings is recommended. That way they are getting something out of it, too, and it’s a win-win for everyone. WHEN IT’S NOT OKAY TO KNOCK OFF SOMEONE’S WORK: There can be serious problems with copying someone else, without permission, and passing it off as your own. They are: CONFUSION: You are causing confusion with the public. People will see your art and confuse it with the other person’s. This does not help either one of you. DIMINISHES YOUR RESPECT AS AN ARTIST: People may not respect you as an artist. They may claim that you can’t do it on your own, that you have to steal from someone else. This does not contribute to your success. STUNTS YOUR GROWTH AS AN ARTIST: You will never grow as an artist if you are outright reproducing someone’s art and style. To grow, you must challenge yourself and cultivate your own look. ILLEGAL: If you are knocking off another’s work for financial gain, you are violating copyright laws. You could be sued and/or get very bad publicity from it. Sunny, it is also common for artist's to do homages of other artists' work but you do not sell it as your own original work.

And Cat's person comment to me on the subject, which sums it all up: "Sunny, it is also common for artist's to do homages of other artists' work but you do not sell it as your own original work."

 

[CathyR]

None of us know if the foundation pays anything ,per piece, to the original artists ( I assume some of the others may be copies too) as homage.
I've read that is considered the polite thing to do as it does pay them for their work. See above post by my tee mouse The artist doesn't say anything about her accepting payment, if payment has been offered or the reason she is so flattered is because JR PAID HER OFF to make positive statements about Patsy's "work". She was asked about it and commented like she was totally unaware of it until someone pointed it out to her and then she just glossed it over. Everyone said she was most gracious, if it is such a huge crime and artist get really upset over it doesn't that send bells and bombshells off in your head. It does mine. Don't you wonder why she was so gracious? I heard the R's had a Public Relations firm working for them. Orchestrating a little positive press and sympathy because it all goes to ovarian cancer. I imagine they had the bases covered. They exhibted in a place where it was OK to do such a thing

Now as to coping a book word for word is different. It isn't like you have a hard time figuring out which painting is the original one. They are hugely different in appearance. I bet 9 out of ten who saw both, and knew nothing about the artist who painted them, would pick the original one to buy. It is better, more detailed and obviously the work of a more talented artist. People who buy Patsy's work are buying it because SHE painted it. The kids could be wearing sombreros and she could call it Amigos and it would still resemble the original, that is my point here.

 

[Bobbarita]

None of us know if the foundation pays anything ,per piece, to the original artists ( I assume some of the others may be copies too) as homage.
I've read that is considered the polite thing to do as it does pay them for their work. See above post by my tee mouse The artist doesn't say anything about her accepting payment, if payment has been offered or the reason she is so flattered is because JR PAID HER OFF to make positive statements about Patsy's "work". She was asked about it and commented like she was totally unaware of it until someone pointed it out to her and then she just glossed it over. Everyone said she was most gracious, if it is such a huge crime and artist get really upset over it doesn't that send bells and bombshells off in your head. It does mine. Don't you wonder why she was so gracious? I heard the R's had a Public Relations firm working for them. Orchestrating a little positive press and sympathy because it all goes to ovarian cancer. I imagine they had the bases covered. They exhibted in a place where it was OK to do such a thing

Now as to coping a book word for word is different. It isn't like you have a hard time figuring out which painting is the original one. They are hugely different in appearance. I bet 9 out of ten who saw both, and knew nothing about the artist who painted them, would pick the original one to buy. It is better, more detailed and obviously the work of a more talented artist. People who buy Patsy's work are buying it because SHE painted it. The kids could be wearing sombreros and she could call it Amigos and it would still resemble the original, that is my point here.

I don't understand the statement "They exhibited in a place where it was OK to do such a thing".

Presently, the artwork is being marketed and sold over the internet by The Patsy Ramsey Foundation. If they do not know Patsy copied (some of ?) the artwork it should be brought to their attention. IMO the artwork should not be marketed as Patsy's when it is so obvious she copied from other artists. There may be other legal ramifications as well.

When I started this thread my intention was to look at the artwork she had done and analyze it. Little did I know it would open up a new can of worms!

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I don't understand the statement "They exhibited in a place where it was OK to do such a thing".

Presently, the artwork is being marketed and sold over the internet by The Patsy Ramsey Foundation. If they do not know Patsy copied (some of ?) the artwork it should be brought to their attention. IMO the artwork should not be marketed as Patsy's when it is so obvious she copied from other artists. There may be other legal ramifications as well.

When I started this thread my intention was to look at the artwork she had done and analyze it. Little did I know it would open up a new can of worms!

I'm waiting to hear what DeeDee's daughter has to say for verification purposes, but unless she goes against everything I've read and everything we've read here with regard to copying other's work, I'm going to make inquiries and do some reporting if warranted.

 

[DeeDee249]

Here's what she said- it is illegal and/or a copyright violation to copy other's works and SELL them as your own, even if you change the titles or some colors. However, unless the original artist decided to press charges or files a "cease and desist", most times you won't get caught.

It is not a violation to copy them for your own use, even to display them privately. It is the SELLING that makes it a violation. However, it is also illegal to display such copied works publicly as your own, even if you don't sell them.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Here's what she said- it is illegal and/or a copyright violation to copy other's works and SELL them as your own, even if you change the titles or some colors. However, unless the original artist decided to press charges or files a "cease and desist", most times you won't get caught.

It is not a violation to copy them for your own use, even to display them privately. It is the SELLING that makes it a violation. However, it is also illegal to display such copied works publicly as your own, even if you don't sell them.

Thanks. Guess I have some letters to write.

 

[Bobbarita]

Thanks. Guess I have some letters to write.

I am new to this website, however, please PM me as I would like to be included as you address this problem of artistic plagarism and I will join you in the follow-up. Off topic---I believe there were some questions raised about where the money was going connected to "The Jon Benet Ramsey Foundation" on a TV interview, so IMO it is not a stretch to question the workings of ANY "foundations" set up by the Ramsey's.