It's a shame though that Sheryl Luxenburg's talent appears to be in stealing, not in painting.

Here's a link to the original photo, which is on sale on Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=2339560. And apparently the owner of the photo did not sell the rights.

Oh well. Let's see what her other work looks like -- wait, where did her website disappear?

I wonder if the American Watercolor Society knows about this??? And you'd think that those who got the silver and bronze medals would be outraged.

You know, as I think of this, I have to wonder - if she used others' images in this fashion, hasn't she committed criminal fraud on the American Watercolor Society to get that gold medal?

OMG. This is awful. It is bad enough the tiny amounts that microstocker receive for their hard earned work, then this happens.

Not only is the image of the man stolen from a stock image library, the peeling paint is too. Here is a link to that image:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=1222217

In addition, many of her other portraits are blatant thefts from stock image sites.

The woman is a thief and a fraud. It's difficult enough to make a living as an artist as it is, without fellow artists appropriating your work and claiming it as their own.

You know - that photo has a signed model release. I would not accuse people of stealing without all of the facts. That's giving someone a bad rap for speculation.

That the PHOTOGRAPHER has a signed model release does NOT mean that Sheryl Luxenburg is entitled so steal his work. The PHOTOGRAPHER has made it clear that she did NOT have either his permission to use the work or had purchased the copyright. Further, the THIEF Sheryl Luxenburg did the same thing to other photographers, to include stealing a self-portrait of one of the photographers and passing it off as her own original work.

It's not "speculation" to call someone a thief when you know that they're a thief.

I wonder if this image will appear in the February 2009 issue special report: the annual Society Winners Showcase ??

Even if the photographer gave permission it should be disqualified because it is not the artist's original work, unless you define orginality as cropping and merging two images created by others. I am surprised none of the magazines are covering this! Jessica, shouldn't this be a huge story for you? How can the image be on the blog here if it is someone elses copyrights?

Seems that she is indeed guilty as charged - she had many other "stolen" images on her website which she immediately took down upon the first accusation. I just wonder why is it taking so long for the AWS to investigate the fraud she perpetrated on them and take back the award? They are still advertising her fake as the winner of the award and the show goes on with it on display. Back here in the states it is a crime to obtain property (the award & prize money) by false pretenses (claiming the work to be her original work). The AWS should turn this over to the criminal authorities and have her prosecuted for the crime she has committed. I imagine she is nowhere to be found.

@ Oh Stop Gossiping.
The existence of a model release, which is held by the photographer and the photo agency, does not give another artist permission to make an identical copy, pass it off as her own work, enter it for a prestigious competition and win a prize for it.

I know for a fact that the copyright to the two images that make up this so-called 'painting' are not held by Ms Luxenburg. That makes her a thief.

What would happen if I, as a photographer, took a photograph of a painter's work and passed it off as my own?

At last, the American Watercolor Society has taken her image down. It's taken them long enough. I hope that they prosecute her for fraud ... because that's what it is.

Apparently, this may be a two-tier fraud. In addition to this shameless infringing of copyrights, there's a question of the medium itself... AWS is investigating whether she has actually painted it, or just used Photoshop to join two (stolen) images and then printed a copy, framed it and entered it in the show, which got her the gold medal. A friend of mine who also won an award in that show (on an original art, as opposed to this one!) told me that nobody could believe this is a painting, as there was no sign of brush strokes. And indeed, in AWS' statement on the matter, they say "...In question are the ownership of the image, the originality of the piece and even the authenticity of the medium..."

Sad, really, that someone who's actually a good artist would go below any imaginable level and advance themselves on the backs of other artists.

I know that many painters do not see photography as an art form - hopefully, that big fiasco will change that.

See the current blog posting for an update on this story. Note: We've removed the painting in question from this site while the issue is being investigated. Thanks to all who have shared their comments here.