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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 1, 2013, 7:23 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

I'm glad that this question has raised as much discussion on this forum as when it was posed at our camera club.

From my perspective, when the artist creates a limited series, there is a perception ( on the part of the buyer& the public) that in so doing, there is added value in it's scarcity. This perception is not limited to art. There are limited releases of wines, cars, even certain vinyl albums or cigars. Hell,
Leica cameras-because they are made by hand & thus always limited in supply, also are coveted by certain segments of the marketplace not only because of quality but also because of scarcity.


Regardless, of how you feel, wether you're on the side of the judge and photographer or the collector who bought the limited edition in good faith that indeed it was a limited edition print. One thing is sure, the marketplace will decide for us. I know, I wont be buying any of his limited edition prints anytime soon.
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 7:46 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

That's OK, Zig, for those prices I wouldn't buy them either, limited or not...!


BTW, I asked my cat Benjamin if he though any of my images would ever sell for those
kind of prices...


He just laughed and laughed...


__________________
William

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

Last edited by Wizzard0003; Apr 2, 2013 at 1:40 AM.
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 11:19 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

IMHO in the digital era there is no such thing as a limited edition.
Anyone who can see a digital version of an image can also try to make a print (probably a very bad one, but they can still make it).

However if you do say you have created one, I don't believe it is proper or ethical to go and make another series using the same source image.
__________________
A smartphone is all the "camera" you really need.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 12:42 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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.
I don't see the sales contract anywhere in the article. I agree on principal that if there was a sales contract and it was violated then Sobel has a case. I would assume that the court examined any such sales contract and concluded it had not been violated, because either they felt it wasn't sufficiently explicit or because as the article indicates they felt the new prints were sufficiently different enough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterP View Post
IMHO in the digital era there is no such thing as a limited edition.
Anyone who can see a digital version of an image can also try to make a print (probably a very bad one, but they can still make it).

However if you do say you have created one, I don't believe it is proper or ethical to go and make another series using the same source image.
But I think this is exactly why the paradigm shifts from the image to the image plus medium being the edition.

As you say in a digital world I can hit print screen and print the result, Eggleston's images were already available in this fashion before he did a new edition of prints.

This is why the print becomes the piece of art, that is the method and presumably the personal involvement in the printing that turns the image (which Eggleston still owns the copyright for) into a piece of artwork. Signing, dating and numbering the print makes it different than a print that was spit out from shutterfly. It indicates the artist has had personal involvement in ensuring the result represents the artist's vision.
__________________
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 2, 2013, 1:54 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

There's nothing in the article that specifically states that Sobel bought a "Limited Edition", though the basis for the article is that he did. (If he didn't, the article wouldn't have been written.) Therefore, the sales contract would describe the circumstances that make it "Limited", and thus this is a simple matter of consumer protection. Here's the law in Maryland, my home state.

The printer he used, and the technology it used, are all immaterial. The sales contract would have described the terms under which additinal prints could have been made. If the contract didn't contain any such provisions, any additional prints would violate the contract.
__________________
  • 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 2, 2013, 2:48 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
There's nothing in the article that specifically states that Sobel bought a "Limited Edition", though the basis for the article is that he did. (If he didn't, the article wouldn't have been written.) Therefore, the sales contract would describe the circumstances that make it "Limited", and thus this is a simple matter of consumer protection. Here's the law in Maryland, my home state.
The problem is the term edition is loosely defined. A buyer can as you have argue any print created from the source image is part of the edition. However a photographer can argue that any variation in size, printing method and medium on which it is printed defines a new edition.

Since the law doesn't clearly define what an edition is these cases end up in court and the judge/jury decides.

The article Wizzard0003 posted originally explains this problem very well.
http://www.dmcphoto.com/Articles/Lim...nts/index.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The printer he used, and the technology it used, are all immaterial. The sales contract would have described the terms under which additinal prints could have been made. If the contract didn't contain any such provisions, any additional prints would violate the contract.
Again I would say you are confusing the rights to the original source image with the print you buy. When Sobel bought the prints he didn't buy the rights to the source image, he bought the product of the printer, source image and the artist.

To say the printer and technology is immaterial is absurd, would a Peter Lik be a Peter Lik if it was printed on plain white paper stock? no of course not
__________________
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 2, 2013, 4:43 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

The printer and technology is immaterial. Eggleston didn't have anything to do with the design or manufacture of anything besides the image.

The presumption with regard to "Limited Editions" is that the original will be destroyed after the production run is complete. If it won't be destroyed, the terms of the contract should say so, and should also stipulate how the original may be reused for futuer editions. Typically, "Limited Edition" sales contracts would allow unlimited postcard size reproductions, 5x7s or even 8x10s, but would limit sizes like Sobel bought, and would certainly prohibit anything like this last production run.

Again, this is all beside the point without knowing the terms f the original sales contract, or how the case was presented in court, but while the article Wizzard0003 linked to is almost certainly how I'm sure the author would like things to be, in the real world the law decides, and the terms of the contract are what matter.
__________________
  • 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 2, 2013, 8:16 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
...in the real world the law decides, and the terms of the contract are what matter.
And a Judge ("the law") in "the real world" looked over all the criteria and decided for the defendant... That
tells me that your "Presumption" that the original will be destroyed and no additional prints be made obviously
was NOT part of the contract...

"Caveat Emptor ~ Let the Buyer Beware"

It's obvious to me that the buyer didn't read the fine print or chose to ignore it and bought anyway... The seller
may or may not be moral (depending on your point of view) but by the decision of a Judge (the Law) he did not
do anything illegal...
__________________
William

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

Last edited by Wizzard0003; Apr 2, 2013 at 9:19 PM.
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 9:50 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,229
Default

The moral of this tale being that investing in art is risky. Have fun with your money, and go to Vegas.
brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 5:53 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
The moral of this tale being that investing in art is risky. Have fun with your money, and go to Vegas.
brian
Brian, I totally agree about having fun. i'll leave the going to Vegas part up to you. :Instead, I'll just buy another camera.
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 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 8:15 PM.