Photoshop Filters Are Not Original Paintings...

You'd better get a grip. There are tens of thousands of these around from a wide variety of different individuals. Lot's of misleading labels with lots of reasons why. Mostly a common ignorance.

I have tried this once, but I did not describe it as original painting.
But that is not the biggest problem.There is much more serious trouble. A lot of people think, that they can download any picture from the internet (and I mean copyrighted, not PD), run it through some painterly filter and voila image is their for sell !

"who's name will remain anonymous at this point, "

And had better remain so.

I'd suggest taking a deep breath before getting things off your chest in future. A rant like this is hardly going to change the situation, given that this is very common (and not just here)

You are right Martin, download a picture, and put a filter or make a collage. I'm boring to see it.

I see too much times the same with the tag "watercolor". If you use a filter that seems watercolor, it doesn't mean that your work is a watercolor.

It's art. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

It's not yours to judge another's work and it is certainly not yours to command another artist take their work down.

Computers open the door to many things. If someone can get away with the things a computer offers, why not. After all, there are many artists who try to pass off replicas as originals. Museums are still trying to determine fakes from originals. Signed and numbered lithographs are forged every day. The computer gives rise to everything, good, bad or indifferent..

it is what it is. funny that you should be mad, when it really should be painters. many people are convinced that all they have to do is click a button and its a painting - then its good enough to call it one later on. but it doesn't matter because even real paintings are printed the same way on this site. and it doesn't matter what you call things, people make up their own definitions of what they think the work is. i mark all of mine photography - yet they call it a painting.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

life is just a " play " on words...bottom line fine art america is a printing business who...what...when... where or why of no importance,the important part for them is clear crisp printable files.you have 5 images in your gallery of those 1 you are selling the original only 21 keywords between the others 4 images with a total of 36 views in a little more than a month better to create more keywords for the search engines and marketing your own work maybe join some groups get people looking at your paintings.

Caveat emptor

Really? And if he refuses? Empty threats made from behind a keyboard, why does this one image bother you more than all the rest?

Never even thought of this. If someone wants to sell it as a photo and has a buyer, ok.
However - selling as "original oil painting" is fraud. And , yes , I'm a painter.
@Bryan Prince - have you done anything about this or just asking for opinions/ letting off steam ?

The sample in opening post artist name is visible lower left side -- able to find/identify it in the directory immediately.

'Name & shame' is against forum rules.

Is Craig's list responsible for every transaction listed on its site?

I suppose what's missing is the seller rating like Ebay would have. Trust is all important in today's transactions. And the FAA money back guarantee doesn't extend to private transactions.

Bryan has a legitimate point.
While his anger may be displaced, the fact is "thousands" of individual are passing off prints of photo-manipulations as prints of oil paintings, acrylic paintings, and watercolors.

You can bet that there will be an art appreciating lawer who getz burned and goes after the one with the deepest pockets. Thatz the nature of the beast.

Yupp, and with that the thread is closed unless and until the OP fixes that and PMs me that it is fixed.