Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 1, 2013, 1:43 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Thought the idea of "Limited Edition" was to add value to the prints so people will pay a higher price. Also making the prints go up in value as time goes by, making the print a good investment. I personally feel that making multiple limited editions of the same photo does not add to the value of the print but lessen the prints value. I would not buy from any artist that makes multiple sets of limited editions but that is a buyers choice.
__________________
Comments always welcome.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 1:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

ramcewan,

Apples and oranges. That would be like everyone that bought "The Wall" on vinyl suing him for releasing the same album on CD. The key element of this scenario that you're leaving out of yours is that the first batch were sold as "limited edition". He printed however many in a limited edition, and then just decided to print more. He didn't have anything to do with the technology used in either of the printers he used, so there's nothing that he can claim is uniquely his in the second one that isn't also in the first.

But more to the point of my more recent comment, the person that bought one of the first "limited edition" prints for $250,000, suffered a loss in the value of his investment because Eggleston decided that "limited edition" was too limited. Now, the people that bought the second "limited edition" prints for $578,500 are in danger of suffering a loss in the value of their investment because Eggleston might decide the second "limited edition" was still too limited.

Why would anyone want to buy any of his prints ever again?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Apr 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 2:17 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,006
Default

i personly think the images look very different, its quite easy to tell them apart, i dont think hes defrauding anyone, im pretty sure the new prints will never be worth as much as the old ones either. its just like buying a second edition book.
kazuya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 2:26 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

TCav, I think you're mistaking "Limited Edition" for "Copyright"...

Copyright means just that, the "Right to Copy", which still belongs to the artist/photographer... The only thing
the buyer bought was one particular "version" of the image which was produced in a limited quantity using
a particular process, nothing more... The "Buyer" does not own any rights to the image, the copyright owner
does...
__________________
William

D7k with old/new glass and a few other things...

Last edited by Wizzard0003; Apr 1, 2013 at 2:33 PM.
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 2:55 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

One thing I didn't see is, were either of the limited editions signed, dated and number? This is how I have always seen multiple sets of limited editions issued in the pass.
__________________
Comments always welcome.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 4:12 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

This has nothing to do with copyright. When photographer William Eggleston sold a "Limited Edition" print to art collector Jonathan Sobel, he was entering into a contract that the print wouldn't be reprinted willy-nilly in the future. By continuing to reproduce that image, whatever the medium, he violated that contract.

The image is the work of art, the work product of the artist. He is bound by the provisions of the sale that limit the number of copies he can make. Just because he got himself a bigger, better printer doesn't mean he can make more copies of that image.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 4:45 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
...When photographer William Eggleston sold a "Limited Edition" print to art collector Jonathan Sobel, he was entering into a contract that the print wouldn't be reprinted willy-nilly in the future...

Everything in this statement is pure assumption on your part... "Limited Edition" means whatever the
producer/seller of the work of art decides it means, there is no set "Law"... Unless you have personally
read this particular limited edition contract than you have absolutely no idea what it said...


I think this article explains it all quite well...


http://www.dmcphoto.com/Articles/Lim...nts/index.html
__________________
William

D7k with old/new glass and a few other things...

Last edited by Wizzard0003; Apr 1, 2013 at 6:32 PM.
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 6:08 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Try this: Limited edition prints

The laws of the state in which the sale took place govern, but the boilerplate law is referred to as the Georgia Print Law. It holds the art dealers, artists, or auctioneers liable for violating the terms of sale for a limited edition print. Without knowing the details of this case, I'd say that either the judge was wrong, or Sobel's lawyer screwed up.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 6:08 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzard0003 View Post
That is YOUR assumption... "Limited Edition" means whatever the producer/seller of the work of art
decided it means and I doubt you personally have read the contract and know what it said...


I think this article explains it all quite well...

http://www.dmcphoto.com/Articles/Lim...nts/index.html
Good read and interesting note at the end
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 6:18 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

From the wording of the original article, I think it's safe to presume that Sobel bought what he was lead to believe was a "Limited Edition Print" and as such, the sales contract should have listed the provisions of the sale. Since Sobel brought the suit, he clearly thought the provisions of the sale were violated.

Given the details in the article, I agree with him.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:30 AM.