eBay Art Scammer Sentenced To Four Years In Prison

from the take-that dept

Not only is eBay a PR platform if you want to sell unusual items, but it’s also quite the scam platform, for those trying to sell bogus items. Years ago, we wrote about the hype surrounding a painting that was being sold on eBay. As the price shot up, rumors began spreading that the painting was by Diebenkorn. Of course, it quickly came out that it was all a big scam, and the guy behind it had some friends register a bunch of fake names to bid up the price of the painting and then spread rumors about its origin. Now, that scammer has been sentenced to four years in prison – which seems a bit extreme for lying about a painting on eBay. Still, it also raises questions about how people value art. Shouldn’t people value art for the work itself, and not who actually created it?

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “eBay Art Scammer Sentenced To Four Years In Prison”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
jim says:

Ebay doing anything

It is a miracle that anyone prodded ebay to do anything about a nonperforming vendor. I am pursuing one now, and get nothing but routine idiot replies from them and they still let the scammer have 20 auctions active at any given time.

It is very frustrating to see the scams allowed to run out of control when they could extinguish them when they are at the low level that the current scammer I am dealing with is operating.

DL says:

Art Value

I sometimes try to argue this with people: if I could take a famous painting like the Mona Lisa, and had a machine that could reproduce it down to the molecular level, so that it was completely indistinguishable from the original (i.e. the same texture of the brush strokes, the same exact pigments, the same imperfections and cracks) would it still be awe-inspiring to look at it? Would it have the same artistic value? I argue that it does… perhaps not the same historic value… but definitely the same artistic value. For example, a copy of a Shakespeare play, even one that is typed on a computer, is considered to have the same artistic value as an original handwritten manuscript. Amusingly enough, many people argue with me that the two examples (reproducing a painting and reproducing a play) are very different and that my molecular-level-reproducing-machine would create replicas that do NOT have the same artistic value. I say these people are having trouble distinguishing between artistic value and monetary value.

Frank Davis says:

Re: Art Value

I am the CEO of a company that makes art replicas. I am also the person responsible for the production of the replica. Great artwork has a metaphysical characteristic that can not be reproduced. There is an exchange of energy between the viewer and the artist. The best way to describe it is like the difference between a live concert and a recording. The recording or replica is good and it can be enjoyed for what it is, but it can never replace an original.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...