Artist painted same picture three times and named them exactly the same - is this right/fair/legal?

Question

I bought a painting, the artist said that it was UNIQUE / ORIGINAL / hand painted and new painting not a print of any kind. Since receiving the picture I have discovered the artist has painted two copies of the same picture and named them the same name. Is this legal? I am concerned on the future value of this painting, would it affect it?

When I challenged the artist I was told "the painting was painted again by because two other customers asked for it. Sometimes we do it if it´s possible. use an idea behind a painting again. But all of his paintings are handmade and therefore that cannot be identical"

What do you think?

Answer 1

That's squirrly, but perfectly legal. Remember, when you purchase an artwork, you own the work itself, but the artist owns the copyright and reserves the right to reproduce the work. You can complain on moral grounds, because the artist did sort of talk out of both sides of his mouth, but legally you don't have a leg to stand on.

And yeah, it probably will undercut the future value of the painting. Because it's less scarce, it's also less valuable. Sorry about that.

Answer 2

Legal - Probably, since the artist retains copyright unless explicitly transferred to you and you likely have nothing in writing implying uniqueness.

Ethical - In no way. When you're sold a painting on the basis that it is "unique" and "original" by the artist the implication is clear. As soon as substancially similar copies are made your painting loses value because it is no longer unique and one of a kind. The artist should have warned you this was done, or could be done, before you purchased the work.

Personally I'd point this out and demand my money back, at least in part, because of the loss in value. Realistically though, if the artist refuses you'll probably spend more on a lawyer than you did on the painting and there'd be no guarantee you'd win a suit or win more than a percentage for lost value.

I wouldn't hesitate to tell everyone in the market for the artist's works what happened though and warn them against buying lest they be the victims of a similar lapse in ethics.

You should note that prints, giclees and other copies of a work are a different issue. If an artist mass produces those type copies of the work sold to you then the value of your "original" will likely go up.

Answer 3

Your right no painting can be Identical therefore the value will be much more along with the others as long as the subject is the same. If you could obtain the others they would make a very good start to an excellent personal collection. That is speaking of a reasonable amount of them (copy's); I would say no more than four or five. As you obtain them the value will increase with each that you hold.

Answer 4

Well since Monet, Picasso, et al. did the same thing I think it's probably legal. A painting cannot be perfectly reproduced so each one will be slightly different. It must of been a popular subject if they had several requests for it so you are in good company. The popular paintings that an artist reproduces several times are always the most expensive. Just think of "Sunflowers" by Vincent Van Gogh. He painted those same damn flowers like 7 times. Each time one is sold it goes for a little bit more. LOL

Answer 5

Hello,

The artista it's the one that have all the right s over the artwork and he can made as many copies as he wants and it's conseder an original as long as he doesn't use any print process .

Answer 6

I can't say if it's right or fair, but I'm fairly sure that it's legal.
Did you buy the painting because you liked it, or as an investment? If you like it, who cares? If it is an investment,you are probably out of luck as to future value in your lifetime.