In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:52:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 ========== Well, that's always what I've sort of understood. If you do a limited edition of 100, no fair reissuing it 20 years later with another edition of 10 or something. If not illegal, unethical. But I am pretty damn sure people don't have to destroy the master. The artist/photographer still retains rights to their "original." Maybe with old woodcuts or silk screens or something people once did that. Don't know. Things must have changed a little with the times, though. And actually this is an interesting topic. There should be a consensus in the art world to what limited edition now means. Around somewhere. And maybe digital is changing that definition a tad. Maybe not. Marnie aka Doe :-)
