|
I still think it's a scam, designed to catch the unwary (sorry). The term "autographed preprint" is clearly stating that a preprint was autographed, not that an autographed photograph was "preprinted". A subtle but important difference.
Definition of an autograph:
"something written by one's own hand"
"a document written entirely in the handwriting of its author"
"A signature written by the individual to whom it belongs"
The "preprint" fulfills none of those definitions, so "autographed preprint" is misleading, at best. "Preprint of an autographed / signed photograph" would be an accurate and honest description - but she's unlikely to sell any of those, is she?
If the signature was lifted from another document and grafted onto an unsigned photo, "autographed photograph" is a downright lie and totally fraudulent.
At the end of the day, the price doesn't matter, fraud is fraud. In my opinion, the auction was carefully worded to mislead and give the impression that you were buying something you were not. That, in my book, is fraud.
There's a story, supposedly true, of a man who sold "signed photographs of "John the Baptist" for $5 a pop. He sold thousands. That was until the complaints started rolling in to the police. The pictures were sent from Mexico and contained a photo of a Mexican man and bore the signature "Juan Baptista". Honest, fraud, misleading?
|