Is it just me, or is there something seriously
wrong with the wild justification attempts
thrown around in this thread.
To the person doing the copying I want to say
That you did ask for permission from someone to
make the fancel is a noble act and shows
character. The person dishonest was the person
giving you permission, when in fact they did not
own the cel. Since you now know who actually
owns the cel and the way that person feels about
having her property copied, I think you should
reevaluate your position. I am sure you did not
mean to get permission from a thief, but the
actual owner instead.
And here is what I think about people calling
cels cheap plastic with paint on it and copying
not a big deal:
Cels are works of art and the comparison with a
Van Gogh is valid. Granted, one is much more
expensive than the other, but there is still a
similarity. How would you feel, if you just
purchased a piece of art and made it publicly
available for all collectors to enjoy. Then you
find yourself staring at a copy of your piece on
eBay. It is nicely marked as a copy, but it is
very close indeed. How many trades do you think
it will take in this world for some dishonest
person to cut off the water mark and sell the
cel as a damaged, but still very nice original
Besides, just the presence of copies dilutes the
value of the original. How can you distinguish
the original from the copy, if it is the
original, which has no marks on it? A Van Gogh
does not suffer from this issue BECAUSE it is
well know where the original is. How would the
owner of the original proof that she owns the
original? If there are many copies of a cel,
chances are any one of the ones on the market is
a fancel. A cel has value, and donít call me an
un-true collector for saying this.
I must applaud the seller for his/her honest
effort in signing the fancel. Not everyone does
that. I am sure the person gets great pleasure
from this hobby and also shows a lot of talent.
Art supplies are expensive and there is nothing
wrong with selling fancels, as long as the
seller asked for permission from the owner.
I think, the seller, probably through no ill
intent from his/her part, ended up taking
advantage of another fellow collector. While
eBay seems to confirm that the auction is valid,
I strongly think the seller should consider the
position the owner of the cel finds herself in,
and do the right thing.
Although I'm sure you didn't mean to, please
don't take advantage of someone's generosity
with your hobby.