If there is a loophole it is not a limited edition. It is not a matter
of legality it is a matter of ethics. The only legal recourse your
buyers would have in such a case is to sue you for breach of contract.
The only ethical way of doing a limited edition is to make your print
run, then destroy the masters. That way your buyers can be at least
assured that any future print has to be a reproduction of one of the
originals, and thus not worth as much. Please note that you can do a run
of 100, sell 10 of them, and still have 90 squirreled away in a box to
sell in the future.
Interestingly anything produced by me prior to 1987 is now a limited
edition because all masters and copies were destroyed by fire. I have
chosen not to use my old "Rit" logo signature on anything produced since
then as well. However, I am not aware of any particular market for Tom
Rittenhouse originals.
"Thomas Arthur Rittenhouse, Photography for Advertising and
Illustration" never happened either <SIGH>. Thus go the best laid plans
of mice and men... Too many dreams, not enough sticktoitness.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/30/2006 8:53:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my
photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would
be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add "value" to my
pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content.
I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's
also free for me...
What are the thoughts of the list about this?
Cheers,
j
=======
I always figured, if I even get to the level of mixing artwork and
photography and producing something, I'd go with limited edition prints.
It is definitely the way to go. The way to make money. Buyers want to know
that they are buying something rather "rare." That, in other words, there
haven't been hundreds and hundreds of copies run off. (They are also willing to pay
more that way.) It applies especially well to artwork (silk screens and
things, although not that many do silk screens anymore), but I am not sure how well
it applies to photography. And, yes, digital seems to make it rather silly.
But not completely silly. Having a master doesn't mean that one literally makes
a continuous series of a bunch of prints. And prints are the product as far as
most people are concerned, not the master.
Personally, if I ever do this, I meant to research it. I think there are
loopholes so that one can do a reprint say in the future, say 20 years later, if
it is necessary. Forms and legalities. Ways to reassure people this is a
limited edition (of 25-50-whatever). Guaranteed by the artist. But that the artist
still retains all rights to the master. And that there is a loophole for
further reprints if necessary (shows, museums, etc.) There must be someplace on the
Net that details how to do this legally.
It's a good idea, in other words. It's the way the art world (and maybe the
photography world) work. For good reasons, when you think about it.
Marnie aka Doe
