ART FRAUD ON THE INTERNET
Almost anywhere you look on the Internet, it's ripe with fraud. Any place you can list art, your name will be associated with examples of this fraud, people selling things they know little about to buyers who know far less than they should. The world of art on the Internet has been invaded and is one giant scam run by a giant class of scumbags.

Yes, there are many fine art galleries, but services on the Internet relating to art list the scum right alongside the finer galleries, giving the scum some aspect of legitimacy. Mixed in with this are items siezed by the Government, in many cases fraudulent or forged art, which is then resold by the U.S. Government, often enough bought up by scam artists and resold to the general public once again as authentic art. Should the government sieze it again, I'll bet they resell it to more crooks. What a laugh, put one guy in jail for selling it, then allow another guy to sell it back to a different victim. At this rate, why not let the first guy remain in business and continue to sell the fraudulent art, thereby saving the expense of a trial?

GETTING BACK TO THE COTTAGE PRINT INDUSTRY
In my prior artist (September 1, 2006) I mentioned the size of a run, or number of prints in a Limited Edition. Four colored prints in an open-end run are simply lithographs, the same as the landscapes and seascapes on paper that you once bought in a picture frame shop for $5.00 to $20.00. The run could be 5,000 or 100,000, for as long as they would continue to sell, the publisher could contine print them.

There was an arbitrary figure of 950 Signed and Numbered prints that was sort of considered standard in the industry, and almost all the artists, whether doing wildlife or cottages, or any other subject matter, and dealers seem to accept. No, it was not a State or Federal law, just a number that became accepted.

When this artist or that one increased the size of the Edition, it was usually frowned upon, and some resellers would even reject the print and refuse to sell it. Most, however, if the prints were selling well, would accept the new number without saying much about it. When Marty Bell's editons increased dramatically, then the dealers went along with it; after all, it would give them more to sell when the clients had the money to buy.

Lighthouse Publishing however, threatened to sue me when they first begain enlarging the editions of Thomas Kinkade's prints, simply because a dealer asked me and I furnished her with a letter giving the above information. Imagine? Because I had said that "most" artists limited their editons to 950 S & N, they wanted to shut me up. The call came from San Jose one day