• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

legality regarding editions etc

Jarvman

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
791
Location
Cardiff, Uni
Format
Multi Format
I'm doing a business module as part of my course and in it I need to put all the information regarding legal issues. Could anybody point me to any information about the legal issues surrounding print sales for example editioning prints etc, even if you could explain in your own way the rules you have to adhere to. Cheers!
 
Claiming that a print is part of a limited edition theoretically increases its value. My sense is that the issue is that if you say that a print is #3 in an addition of 5, and then you make and attempt to sell 50 prints, you are guilty of misrepresentation. That is an ethical issue, and if caught, your diminished credibility could affect your ability to make future sales of editioned prints.

Whether it rises to a matter of legality depends on the laws of the jurisdiction where this occurs. And whether the authorities actually pursue the matter depends on how many people are buyers are misled by the practice and the degree to which they believe they have been harmed.

Here in the colonies, we distinguish between civil law and criminal law. I suspect that iin most instances, if this becomes a matter of law at all, it would be a civil matter in which the buyer attempts to recover the alleged losses from the seller.
 
In the UK I should imagine the Trade Descri[tions Act would be applicable.
 
While I agree that it would be mostly a civil matter, several US states do have statutes regarding editions that could, at least theoretically, result in criminal proceedings. I have never, however, heard of such a case.
 
in australia there are provisions in the federal "trade practices act" and mirror provisions in most of the states in the "fair trading acts" which deal with deceptive and misleading conduct in trade or commerce. allmost anything can fall into "trade" or "commerce" generally its buying and or selling. so if the customer is mislead or decieved about a product or service then there is the likelihood of a breach of one or other of the above acts.

a very contentious issue in australia is the bill henson saga which involved photos of young girls the national classification board ultimatley decided that they were not pornographic but there was a big outcry about the prints and his exhibition.
 
Oh, another question. As being a self employed printer what health and safety issues do you legally have to take into consideration, blah!
 
One more little thing about editions. There are some photographers that play fast and loose with the idea. Typically they release an edition in one size, and then release another in a different size, and so on. The additional ploy is to set the editions very high, so high in fact that the chance of selling out in combination with the first dodge I mentioned is really not a limiting factor. Except for a very few, "1 of 500" is a total joke.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here, where I live, as a self employed printer you are required to follow the same rules as any business or home business. That includes zoning, traffic, signs, chemical storage and disposal, fire, etc. The rules for home business in my area are different from those of a "regular" business in some cases, for instance I am required to keep a fire extinguisher, but am exempt from the yearly visit from the fire marshal. If I had a storefront I would be inspected every year. OTO I am not allowed to have a sign, nor any noticeable traffic, generate smoke or noticeable smells, store chemicals in bulk, etc.

These kind of laws are very local, and are different even from municipality to municipality.
 
I don't think anyone's going to prosecute you if you exceed a stared print run, but it's not going to do much good for your reputation. P.
 
JBrunner said:
One more little thing about editions. There are some photographers that play fast and loose with the idea. Typically they release an edition in one size, and then release another in a different size, and so on.
Click to expand...
Even thought this makes it sound like a shady practice, this is completely acceptable and many do this.

Get the AIPAD publication "On Collecting Photography". I think it might help the OP a lot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
billschwab said:
Even thought this makes it sound like a shady practice, this is completely acceptable and many do this.

Get the AIPAD publication "On Collecting Photography". I think it might help the OP a lot.
Click to expand...

I think I should clarify, I wasn't clear. I think when the editions are in markedly different sizes, and the photographer is completely upfront, it is a reasonable practice. For one thing it might allow someone struggles financially who wants a particular print to afford it in a smaller size. I am referring to persons who change the size a tiny bit. I have seen this. While a practice like that might follow the letter, I feel it is deceptive.

A while ago I read an article by Brooks Jenson. It was called "What Size is the Edition?" In typical Brooks fashion he makes a cogent argument against editions, agree with him or not. I found I agreed in principle with his reasonings, and decided to stop editioning my prints. What I found was that even though I felt Brooks reasonings were sound, that open editions did not sell nearly as well. What I wound up doing was going back to editions, but I set the limit at ten. Now that seems low, but the truth is for me, ten is plenty, and creates a true (although artificial) rarity. I'd rather have 10 of 10 out their than 2 of 500. Clearly this is what works for me. If my prints get to the point where ten isn't enough, I might raise it to twenty, but presently it takes me a at least a year or more to sell through ten. The nice thing about this is when I get the print dialed in it doesn't take me long to run off ten + one for myself or my mom. That way when someone wants one I can just pull it out and mount it. I don't have to fire up the darkroom and print it.

I hope I haven't gone too far off topic, but I think anyone interested in the whats, wherefores, and whys of editions should read the article:

Dead Link Removed

As I said, a cogent and well thought out position that I mostly agree with in principle, but do not practice, as a practical matter of economics. In other words sales. I need to make a certain pittance to keep printing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a member of a local arts group that sponsors an annual member show. This year, the announcement included a stipulation (for the first time) that photography would be accept ONLY "if they are from a limited edition, signed on the front with the edition size indicated."

My initial reaction was impolite, that this was yet another attempt by the painterly crowd to marginalize photography.

But part of me says that the issue they are dealing with is the ease with which multiple copies of an image can be created using digital technology, and that they wanted to assure that the show retained some degree of uniqueness by excluding work that is simply reproduction.

I haven't seen the show yet - the formal opening is Thursday. But if my piece is once again hung at the end of that long, dark corridor, I will revert to my impolite thoughts.
 

Jason... thanks for the link, that was a good read. I like his idea of creating editions the way books are produced. i.e. a first of edition printing of x number of copies... when it sells, there's a second printing. It doesn't limit things artificially, but keeps it a bit more organized than an open or unlimited edition.

My question for you, Jason... do you make ten prints at one time, then? With one or two for you or mom??

Seems to me with 10 copies done at once, it's a good amount to maintain an inventory of prints without breaking the bank producing them.
 
I make and occasional sell woodcut prints and rather than try to create an artificial scarcity with a 'limited edition' I keep the editions open, the signing date being the important factor denoting how many in that particular edition and I mark them as 'Open' like this example; 1/25 O.E.______29.11.08______Eli Griggs

I, and others, believe limited editions are a bad idea, in traditional printing or photographic mediums, unless something about the making of the piece is very difficult/labor intensive or impossible to duplicate in future editions, such as an one-off hand coloured edition. The market should determine the value, not gallery owners trying to increase their profits at the expense of artists/photographers future sales and those artists that buy into the scheme are undermining their own self-interest. If an image rates an increased number of printings, then the artist is able to meet demand; if the image is not worthy of additional editions, the artist is not loosing money or tying up resources by creating unsalable prints.

Some artists will pick a number as a limit to an edition and though they may only make an original run of 10% and never print another example of that work, those prints in the first run will carry an incorrect number forever, misleading all not in 'the know'!

IIRC, in some states, an original work of art above a certain sells price, say a hundred dollars, must carry a certificate with details, including the number of editions and pieces to each, to make sure the buyer is protected from unsavory practices.

Cheers
 
I quite agree Eli. The very nature of photography - since Fox Talbot - has been unlimited reproduction of the image. To artificially limit the reproduction is denying this nature.

Cheers, Paul.
 
Reputations can be ruined on one imprudent action. My absolute pet hate is digital photographers who churn out "limited edition prints" by the hundreds, all the while numbering them "1/10". I cannot believe how they utterly trivialise it to the 'nth degree.

I concur with David Mizen (#5) that the Trade Practices Act in Australia covers deceptive and/or misleading conduct, but I have never personally heard of any photographer or artist in strife over something like misrepresenting Editions.

My fine art B&W triptych, "The Moorings", shot in 1997 in Taranna, Tasmania, was limited to 10 editions. Only 7 sets were sold. No more have been produced or signed by me after the last sale 2 years ago. Being a member of NAVA (National Association for the Visual Arts Ltd) means I do have common adherence to ethics that I stick to like everybody else in active artistic practice.
 
the problem with edition numbers is :- how do you prove that the edition numbers are repetitions or are not unique ? on reflection the only way
this kind of issue would arise or be discovered is if the artist sold works with the same numbers to people who were known to each other (what chance that?)
or it came to light in the prosecution of some underlying ilegality - eg a search and seizure order for breach of copyright which results in the cataloging of all of the "artists" work.

I have vague recollections of deceptive and misleading conduct (or its english equivalent) croping up in a case involing art fraud were a person was creating painted copies of the works of an "old master" and passing them of as the real thing.

We should also not forget the artists works must be his own ie not infringe copyright or infringe someone elses moral rights (or its equivalent).

dcm
 

Hi Suzanne,

No, it hasn't been a problem, $10-20 or so for ten prints. I keep them filed in a small cabinet. They are un-mounted. Lots easier than firing up the darkroom and trying to replicate one offs from scratch, even with notes. Once dialed it only takes me a half an hour or so to crank out ten. When somebody buys one, it pays for a bosw of paper or so, enough to produce the next 100 give or take. Since I only print ten, it doesn't take much space.
 
JBrunner said:
What I found was that even though I felt Brooks reasonings were sound, that open editions did not sell nearly as well.
Click to expand...
So you found for yourself what many have been saying for some time. There are those that like to think that editioning is a photographer/dealer driven practice. One that artificially creates scarcity and inflates pricing for their benefit. In actuality it is a collector driven practice. Many collectors feel more comfortable knowing there is a finite number of any given image available.
david_mizen said:
...the only way this kind of issue would arise or be discovered is if the artist sold works with the same numbers to people who were known to each other (what chance that?)
Click to expand...
A VERY good chance. Dealers talk, collectors talk... it is a very small world out there and the chance of this kind of impropriety being found out is very high. Your reputation can be ruined in an instant. I advise anyone who editions their work to keep an edition book that tracks how many of any given print is in existence, where and who sold it, etc. Good records will help you avoid a mistake that could cost your reputation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yes, exactly. More importantly, even though it can be reasoned that it shouldn't make a difference, it does, and that is where the rubber meets the road if you try to make a living. I'd love to be altruistic, but my poverty is a pragmatist.
 
Great thread and great insight. As someone who is just recently trying to break into the fine art world, I look at this as a nice problem to have, as I have only sold minimal amounts of prints over the years That said, I will take the advice here if I am lucky enough to make something of my work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register