Reply #83: Churchill never once claimed he had permission

[qwghlmian]

from the author of the original art. What Churchill did was illegal, pure and simple. Ryan Mails should (and probably will) nail his hide to the wall.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0%2C1299%2CDRMN_15_3575329%2C00.html

A short time later, Churchill emerged from his office and agreed to comment. He acknowledged his serigraph was based on the Mails drawing, but insists he disclosed that fact during the initial release of the prints.

"It's an original work by me, after Thomas Mails . . . The fact that the purchaser was ignorant of the reality of what was perfectly
publicly stated at the time the edition was printed is not my responsibility."

Churchill gives no credit to Mails on the work itself. The professor also refused to provide documentation to support his claims.

But even if it does exist, it may not matter as far as copyright law is concerned.

"In my opinion, unless there was consent for Churchill to do his piece, then there is copyright infringement here," Hubbell said.

When contacted at his home in North Carolina, Ryan Mails, the son of the late Thomas Mails, said the family retained the copyright to the drawings in the Mystic Warriors book, and that his father fiercely defended the copyrights.

"I cannot imagine he would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces," his son said.