Nobody wants to pay a million bucks for an authenticated accurate clone. The entire idea of the fraud described above is that people think they're buying the original.

Prints already exist, but nobody is paying big bucks for one.

Well people pay large sums for prints of the Great Wave, of which many thousands were made and are still being made. (Of course the trick is to know which prints are the earliest ones)

The trick is convincing people that earlier prints should be somehow worth more.

I think there's a genuine reason for them to be worth more since they are closer to the original painting. There's a fantastic (and long) series on Youtube about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhiMCSvtCc

Some museums do sell prints of public domain art, or licensed reproductions including oil painting reproductions. https://shop.famsf.org/collections/monet-the-late-years-art-...

Not quite the same thing as an accurate clone

You can get 3D printed reproductions, too:

- https://gizmodo.com/heres-how-to-get-your-own-picasso-for-un...

- https://www.digitalmeetsculture.net/article/van-gogh-museum-... (probably a bit higher in quality and price, but I can’t find a link for it)

- https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/business/van-gogh-museum-edi... (probably even better, but likely also very pricey)

Interesting that Starry Night is a bestseller for the start-up, but not available from the Van Gogh Museum in either collection.

The ethics of such a practice would be dubious at best.

If the original is now public domain and the replica is not advertised as the original, I'm not sure what the ethical issue is?

I do see a financial issue though, cheap clones are CHEAP - and if you want something that can nearly pass as authentic (which I'd argue is a work of art on it's own) you'd be looking at a very narrow market of buyers.

Again, as long as replicas/clones are labeled as such and the original is in the public domain.

Why? This is just like selling high-quality prints of the paintings, which is already done and nobody complains about.

Perfect reproductions are a goal both for museums and researchers. See, for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337848225_Gloss_Col...

I don’t see why if they’re clearly indicated as clones.