Re: Editions

Good point. I think that goes to Judy's comment as well. What is missing
here is intent. The law pursues intent in claims of Grand Theft or fraud.

If those Man Ray negatives were used as 'reproduction from original
negatives' there would have been no fraud claims. Of course, there would
not have been those great prices, either; but still the trouble to find old
paper and reproduce the outdated pictures with the original negatives is a
collectable item in the eyes of the law, and in my opinion. Repeat: If the
intent, as in marking the sale as 'reproduction' to inform the seller.

To simply remake a print after an edition is not Grand Theft. I don't know
of any photographers who make an edition and sell it as such with the claim
that they will never make more.

What I don't like is when photographers make five or ten prints -- even
less -- and number them as a series of, say 1/45 to claim they will only
make forty-five copies. Then either fail to keep track or just keep making
them.

Well, they could say this was a picture, made with the intent of making only
forty-five and that was an evaluation of the artistic value; because they
have a one to ten that they judged to be of lesser importance; and this
numbering effect was their valuation of the importance of this one image.
There's nothing wrong with that, either; because there is really no standard
for editioning.

Even with books, there is not always an announcement as to what eidition
you're buying. There is, however, a copyright date with a book. That is an
entirely different subject.

S. Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cremati" <johnjohnc@core.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 5:38 AM
Subject: Editions

>
> I have a group of friends who are sculptors... I have seen them do
> over the years make images in clay, make molds and then cast them in
> bronze.... What has happened is that the edition ( typically 6 to 10 ) of
> several of the figures have sold out quickly as they were very desirable
> .....
> Most artists lack money so some of them continued the edition with
> out numbering them and with out informing the previous clients who had
> purchased numbered pieces ......They sold them elseware in the
> US......Others continued making castings from the same mold only using
> other metals such as stainless steel.. They would create a edition of
> Stainless, bronze, aluminum, silver, ect Although I feel this is ethical
> they did it with out informing previous clients... ....
> My feelings are in photography a edition would be a print made from a
> particular negative and a particular process combination no matter the
> suptile differences ( actually a good selling point as they in reality
are
> one of a kind images) ... I think it is perfectly ethical to create a
> special separate edition made from a entirely different processes and
> still using the same negative. But when it runs out , let it runs out
,
> no matter how popular the image. Keep this in mind when you start the
> image edition... In other words, do not place a edition of 6 on one of
your
> best images that you have ever taken.....
> I think we should live by our word ... If we do not , our word
> becomes meaningless.. In other words no matter what you say or do has any
> meaning or substance... If we do not live by our word there is a price to
> pay.......... As a example I have seen these sculptors that cheat a little
> go into cycles where they do not create much of any new work.. They get
> stuck in a rut of only doing the figures that sell. Then when doing new
> work, it highly resembles the very successful work they had previously
> made..... They are stuck in the mud as far as I am concerned and are
paying
> that price whether they know it or not....
> John Cremati
>
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 4 11:25:36 2004