|
|
|
|
|
|
by goodusername
997 days ago
|
|
|
The court subtracted a fee for the artwork and for the display of the work, which he does not have to give back - so the artist did in fact get paid for his empty frame artwork. Now he just has to give back the money he lent for the originally agreed upon artwork that he did not create. Seems like a fair deal, since he also got a ton of publicity out of it. |
|
|