Art baits and the law

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:37 pm

I've been rather disturbed reading some of the threads on art baits whereby baiters are obtaining works of art without paying for them. There are strong guidelines here against money baiting but art baiting is effectively the same thing - imo putting baiters on the wrong side of the moral debate and the wrong side of the law.

"Obtaining property by deception" is illegal in England and I'm sure elsewhere too. In England it a crime under the Larceny Act, 1916 then under the Theft Act 1968 and now under the Fraud Act 2006.

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:01 pm

The lads are not doing the art. They are paying an artist to do it. So its not stollen merchandise. Yes it's true they are promising the lad money for the art piece but they are not stealing something since it has already been paid for.

The lad is just being greedy thinking he will get thousands of dollars for something he paid a lot less for.

It waste the lads time and money.

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:10 pm

krudyf_ingernails wrote:

I've been rather disturbed...

Now, in 2012, you have a problem with the art baits? Did you not have a problem with them back when you joined on 2005? Or in 2010 when you were here? I know you were here when Shiver was here and he had several art baits. Did you have a problem with them?

I swear I am not being argumentative or trying to put you on the defensive, but it just seems a bit odd to me. You joined a long time ago and just recently came back and already have complained about double standards and now art baits. It seems like you are trying to get some sort of ethics thing going. Confused

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:26 pm

*sigh*

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:31 pm

DoraTheExplorer wrote:

krudyf_ingernails wrote:

I've been rather disturbed...

Now, in 2012, you have a problem with the art baits? Did you not have a problem with them back when you joined on 2005? Or in 2010 when you were here? I know you were here when Shiver was here and he had several art baits. Did you have a problem with them?

I swear I am not being argumentative or trying to put you on the defensive, but it just seems a bit odd to me. You joined a long time ago and just recently came back and already have complained about double standards and now art baits. It seems like you are trying to get some sort of ethics thing going. Confused

I don't recall ever reading about them before.

I'm not deliberately trolling - I'm sorry if it comes across that way.

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:05 pm

krudy, I didn't think you were trolling. Eater wouldn't allow something illegal and ethics and morals are a personal thing -- up to each baiter what they feel comfortable with.

Some art ethics threads and the art baiting tutorial:

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=194046&highlight=art+ethics

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116486&highlight=art+ethics

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=184886&highlight=art+ethics

And another that got into ethics in general: http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103116&highlight=art+ethics

If you present your art bait to the lad correctly, there is no legal wrong-doing. You clearly tell him from the get-go that you can't pay until it is in your hands and you (or your client) approve of it. And then, you don't approve it (for some reason) and thus, aren't obligated to pay for it.

However, if you are uncomfortable doing an art bait, then like everything else in baiting, don't do it. Wink

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:17 pm

DoraTheExplorer wrote:

krudy, I didn't think you were trolling. Eater wouldn't allow something illegal and ethics and morals are a personal thing -- up to each baiter what they feel comfortable with.

Some art ethics threads and the art baiting tutorial:

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=194046&highlight=art+ethics

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116486&highlight=art+ethics

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=184886&highlight=art+ethics

And another that got into ethics in general: http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103116&highlight=art+ethics

If you present your art bait to the lad correctly, there is no legal wrong-doing. You clearly tell him from the get-go that you can't pay until it is in your hands and you (or your client) approve of it. And then, you don't approve it (for some reason) and thus, aren't obligated to pay for it.

However, if you are uncomfortable doing an art bait, then like everything else in baiting, don't do it. Wink

Thanks. I'll have a read of those. If they convince me, I might even have a go. You can never have too much crappy art.

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:19 pm

^

Quote:

You can never have too much crappy art.

I don't know. I think Charles Saatchi might disagree with you. Wink

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:42 pm

My opinion is obtaining by decept defense listed above is about as thin as shoplifiting is not a crime as the manufacture of the pack of gum was paid by the store.. How would that be any different. My only exception is to have lads send lots of rubber checks and money orders. They have no cash value and are not considered art or a retail product. The postage paid is what the lad pays in the commission of a crime.

Art is in the eyes of the beholder. A floor covered in fake checks and money orders is a sight to behold. Very Happy

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:56 pm

Agent1002 wrote:

My opinion ...

Just like morals, everyone has them. If an art bait makes you uncomfortable, then please don't do one.

Quote:

The postage paid is what the lad pays in the commission of a crime.

A lad would rarely pay for the postage to send the checks. It is usually a stolen postage/shipping FedEx/USPS/UPS account that they use. Or they have a mule/vic paying for the postage. One might argue that check baiting is contributing the use of the stolen accounts. (I am not arguing this. I am just sayin'. Wink

)

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:58 pm

Quote:

Just like morals, everyone has them.

Apparently I don't. If it weren't banned here - I'd have no moral problem trying to cash bait a lad (but I understand why it's a good idea not to, and respect that rule). Art baits? Not my cup of tea. But if you want hilarious lad-art trophies, go for it. If you don't, don't. Cool

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:09 pm

Art Baits are fun - but as I mentioned before one has to be careful not to bait the artist himself. Some lads forwarding the mail to friends and I had some genuine businessmen and artist responding to me.

But if the baiter is careful and sure to have a lad (a response from the scam email address is the best sign) an art bait is a real challenge.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:53 pm

Quote:

is about as thin as shoplifiting is not a crime as the manufacture of the pack of gum was paid by the store.. How would that be any different.

if we are going to use an analogy to offer explanations then we need to use an accurate analogy, such as...

A store first tries to get you to pay for an item they they don't have. You say no but would like to purchase a wholesale of gum if they can supply you with a sample of gum first to see if it passes your "flavor to chew aggressiveness ratio." They send you a gum that fails the test, and therefor you dont buy a wholesale. That can in no way be considered shoplifting.

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:02 am

Any artist who supplies a yahoo boi with goods should have the sense to demand cash up front.

On the other hand a Yahoo boi who does not pay his debts will quickly find himself in hot water.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

@deadk1ng: Well stated. Thumbs up

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:38 am

^^^
+1

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:04 pm

^^^ and I am pretty sure most artist will ask for a deposit before starting to work... otherwise it would be easier to get the art from the lad...