And he ain't an artist either.
A couple of days ago, I noted that leftist UC-Boulder "professor" Ward Churchill finally admitted he lied about being of Indian ancestry.

Now it appears he dabbles in copyright infringement. You see, back in 198, "Professor" Churchill produced and began selling copies of this piece of art:



Not my tastes, but not a bad creation.

Except it wasn't his creation. Here is a picture designed by the late Thomas Mails and initially released in 1972:



Note the similarities? It appears that "Professor" Churchill's "creation" is merely an inked mirror image of Mails' prior work. A reader at Little Green Footballs came up with this .gif to show just how similar the two works are:



Of course, "Professor" Churchill does not like to be confronted about such things, as a Denver CBS reporter learned:

The following text is a transcription from CBS4's footage of the exchange between Chohan and Churchill on Thursday in the hallway outside his office.

'Get that camera out of my face,' Churchill said.

'This is an artwork we've got called 'Winter Attack.' It looks like it was based on a Thomas Mails painting; it looks like you ripped it off. Can you tell us about that?' Chohan asked.

That prompted Churchill to take a swing at Chohan while he held a stack of papers in his hand.

The exchange continued:

Chohan: 'Sir, that's assault, you can't do that. Can I ask you about this? It looks like you copied it.'

Churchill: 'I was just grabbed by the arm. And that (camera) gets out of my face.'

Chohan: 'Sir, we're allowed to take these pictures, this is a public space.'

Churchill: 'You're not allowed to grab be by the arm.'

Chohan: 'He didn't touch you sir, we've got it all on tape. Sir, this is called Winter Attack. It's a serigraph by you. It looks like it was copied from Thomas Mails artwork. Can we talk to you about that please?'"

Of course, "Professor" Churchill evades the question, ultimately disappearing into his office. A few minutes later, he came out with a convenient story to explain the whole thing:

"It is an original art work by me, after Thomas Mails," Churchill said. "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."

This story would work great except for three little problems. First, nothing on the Churchill work acknowledges that it is in fact a copy of Mails' work. Second, Churchill refused to produce any evidence that he had permission from Mr. Mails' to copy the earlier work. Third, it would appear that Mails "fiercely defended [his] copyrights," according to Mails' son.

"My father invested a great deal of himself in his work, and from that he developed a great fierceness in defending his work," Mails' son said. "I cannot imagine he would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces."

The owner of the Churchill work discovered the apparent copyright infringement when he noticed the similarity between Churchill's work and the earlier Mails piece. He stated, "Sure, it makes me angry, it makes me very disappointed . . . I wanted some original artwork from what appeared to be a very good local artist. Now I don't know what I've got."

Imagine how "Professor" Churchill's students must feel after paying tuition and getting this bozo to "teach" them.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a great post on this and other copyright infringements "Professor" Churchill has apparently foisted onto an unsuspecting public.
- posted by MrSpkr @ 12:03