Is this fraud?

[Michele Rushworth]

Sounds like fraud to me. Time to review whatever contract was signed and call an attorney, I think.

[Claudemir Bonfim]

I know some famous artists who employ assistants in their studios in the U.S., South America and Europe, but the main work and the final strokes are made by them and not by their assistants.

At least in my Country an artwork and the signature must be owned by the same person or it is classified as fraud.

[Mike McCarty]

My understanding of the meaning of "fraud" is:

The knowing misrepresentation of a material fact.

Assuming that the contract was silent on the question of using third party painters, it would seem that this scenario would meet the above definition.

he's not going to tell the client that he had someone else paint it or paint on it.

However, the difference between "painting it" and "painting on it" is, as they say, as wide as a church door. If the entire painting was done by someone else it would seem that the client would have cause for some kind of action. If it gets into the realm of "how much" did the third party contribute to the completed painting, then, I would think that the water would become much less clear.

Out here practicing without a license per usual.

[Kimberly Dow]

The law gives leeway to 'intent' - most clients would have no idea (nor most portrait artists I assume) that another artist would be involved in the painting. The intent of the contract would then be that the original artist would be the only painter - so yes it would be fraud. Besides - if you are hiring a well-known artist they are buying the name as well and the possibility of the investment going up in value later - wouldnt that lower the value if an unknown painted part of it?