Selling limited edition prints

[max_ebb]

For those that sell limited edition prints, is just marking them 1 of 25, 2 of 25, etc all you have to do, or is there more to it than that? Do they need to be registered/certified? Do you provide certificates of authenticity? I have some gallery owners telling me that need to market my work as limited editions, with the edition numbers visibly marked on the framed prints (on the mount board or mat board, not on the print itself) and/or certificates of authenticity. One owner in particular said that everything should be documented and registered. Registered with who?

Thanks in advance for any help on this matter.

 

[kaygee]

I've always been a little confused with limited edition photographic prints - are you planning on destroying the negative afterwards? If not, then they're not limited edition, limited edition specifically means that there are absolutely no more that can be made. I know in printmaking, the plates, screen, or block is destroyed making it so they can never be reproduced.

Quite frankly, I'd never destroy my negatives. I don't know if people are just using the terminology different than printmakers, but that's where my knowledge comes from.

Instead, something can just be a numbered edition, which is something that was created all at once. So 1-25 would be printed all at the same time, say.

 

[roteague]

It depends upon where you live. In the state of Hawaii, all limited edition prints require a Certificate of Authenticity - by state law. However, I believe Hawaii is only one of two states with such a law. Personally, I think it is a good idea.

 

[kjsphoto]

Robert there is a lot of states that require this. More than you know.

Max, PM me and I will be more than happy to offer any advice I can.

I have been told outright by many collectors that they will not buy work that is not limited. Why? I don't really know. I think it is the exclusiveness that limiting the work creates.

 

[cole]

A state regulated certified authentic edition . All you need is to add the word
original and you will be able to sell that photograph to anyone. The rule of any edition is there is no rules . Collecters as well as I have no idea what
are the rules of an edition any more . I stopped making editions in 1988
I started looking at each image as a photograph. That simple.

 

[kjsphoto]

Cole that is simply not true or valid advice. You need to disclose everything about the item you are selling. Each state in the union has different set of rules on selling multiples,” Limited Editions”.

For example, please see the following links. There is a site which I cannot find at the moment that shows every state and what is required in selling multiples. I am not sure if open editions are included in these laws.

http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa4.htm
http://www.collegeart.org/guidelines/photolaw.html

Again every single state is different and if the unfortunate should happen, ignorance will not excuse you, me or anyone for that matter for not knowing what the laws are.

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

I'd also like to know if galleries usually require editioned editions? ie same paper batch and processing. How much variation is usually tolerated?

 

[mmcclellan]

This is all interesting stuff -- can anyone post scans of these certificates so we can see what they look like, what is on them, etc.? Is that an official form of some kind? Or something the artist works up on his own? Thanks.

 

[kjsphoto]

Michael PM sent.

 

[Byron Worthen]

Hello, Everyone. Many thanks for starting this thread because this question has been on my mind, lately. I am just now starting to sell prints and I do number mine and limit editions to 50. I looked around on the web to see if I could find anything for my state, Pennsylvania, and found that we also have a state law that is very similar to the New York and California laws linked above. These laws could be more widespread than we know! I did find a site where they made an attempt to standardize the Certificate of Authenticity and other such matters.

I certainly want to keep any sales of my photographs perfectly ethical and legal and this thread prompted me to go find out for sure. Good thing I know where to find everyone who has bought one of my prints so that I can get a "COA" to them! I though the stamp on the back of my mount board was enough.

 

[davetravis]

Max,
If the galleries are asking for COA's, then do it.
You can make them yourself from blank certs bought at Office Depot, and a decent printer. Use any ole word processor and create a good looking result. I hand-press a gold foil stamp in the bottom right corner. Fill them out yourself, dated and signed.
Keep good, permanent records of all the numbers.
Since I started doing this, my sales have increased, and the buyers like getting the provenance.
Good luck!
DT

 

[roteague]

There is also the issue of edition size. B&W editions tend to be much smaller than color. I had one person complain that my editions were too large (350 for the particular print he was looking at), but you see people like Peter Lik going in editions of 950. I personally prefer to keep them around 250 or 125.

 

[eddym]

For those of you who offer limited editions:
Do you really print all (10, 25, 50, or whatever) copies of your edition of a specific negative at once, before you offer the edition to a gallery or the public?
If you do not, then (given the supply realities of today's market) how can you guarantee your gallery owner that you will be able to fulfill an edition by printing it on the same paper, with the same chemicals, toners, etc.? Suppose, for example, you began printing an edition on Agfa paper, and then it disappeared from the market, and you had not laid in a frozen stock sufficient to compete your edition? Is it ethical to continue printing an edition on a different paper?

 

[roteague]

For those of you who offer limited editions:
Do you really print all (10, 25, 50, or whatever) copies of your edition of a specific negative at once, before you offer the edition to a gallery or the public?
If you do not, then (given the supply realities of today's market) how can you guarantee your gallery owner that you will be able to fulfill an edition by printing it on the same paper, with the same chemicals, toners, etc.? Suppose, for example, you began printing an edition on Agfa paper, and then it disappeared from the market, and you had not laid in a frozen stock sufficient to compete your edition? Is it ethical to continue printing an edition on a different paper?

There is no requirement that the image be printed the same way, only that the image number is what you say it is. I only print images as I need them.

 

[blaze-on]

In many ways all prints are from limited editions. You can only print so much...Stating so seems to passify the gallery snubs. It is more common in the lithography/serigraph/printmaking world as plates/screens etc have a limited life. Editions in litho usually ran around 100 or less while other printmaking media tended to go higher.

I highly doubt anyone prints the entire edition especially if the "limited" number assigned is above 20. That would be an unnecessary expense.

Print on demand is more likely for most.

Certificates again is something that appeases the gallery folk as a selling tool and you can print your own at home-no need to buy anything. It adds a little pizzazz for the potential buyer.

As far as having to continue an edition on a different paper stock, if there's no choice other than to not print, go for it. You're not stating it's a limited print on such and such paper...

I just state most prints are limited to editions of 50 or less and don't number the prints. Should a particular image be my "moonrise", than subsequent "second edition" prints would follow.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

My guess is that limited editions are for the most part a gallery owner driven idea, because it puts an artificial cap on the number of prints that can be sold. When editions sell out and the photographer is old and forced into retirement, the gallery owner would have concurrently marketed replacement artists thereby ensuring the money keeps rolling in.

Ansel had about the best idea - to stop making new prints from old negatives by a certain date. There was a huge number of prints purchased before the deadline (he played 'the game' well), and those that bought early still had made sound investments because, for some unknown reason, earlier prints usually sell at auction for more than later ones.

I've only heard one person (here on APUG, and a way-famous one by the way) give a good reason why he chose to do limited editions...because he just wanted to get out there to take more photographs.

Murray

 

[wayne naughton]

a limited edition is just that, one of x number of prints and that's it no more. then the stone, plate or dare i say it, negative, is broken, destroyed, scored, or somehow rendered unusable. Certificates of authenticity are a joke, you get them with framed animation cells and sporting memorabilia. and when you think of it, what's the point of numbering and signing the mattes? that's silly....does a painter put his signature on the frame? would any print stay in it's original mount over it's lifetime, very few i would suggest. Personally i would steer well clear of any marketing that included the terms limited, ist or restricted edn and i certainly would avoid individual certificates of authenticity, they're not necessary for other mediums, don't see why photography should be treated any different... just my opinion

wayne

 

[cole]

Kisphoto It is true and it is not advice but an observation of limit editions.
There is a differance between discloser and editions. There is no law that says that you have to make editions, but if you are making editions and deceive your customers and dealers the law gives them legal right to press charges or to sue.

So you can come up with your own interpetation of what an edition means to your work, and set up loop holes to get around your own editions and
it is totaly legal as long that you disclose what you are doing to you buyers
and dealers. The law is about fraud NOT how you market your images.

 

[Edwardv]

I do not believe in limited editions. Everyone should be able to purchase a photograph that they may like at a reasonable price. Then again what is a reasonable price?

 

[roteague]

a limited edition is just that, one of x number of prints and that's it no more. then the stone, plate or dare i say it, negative, is broken, destroyed, scored, or somehow rendered unusable. Certificates of authenticity are a joke, you get them with framed animation cells and sporting memorabilia. and when you think of it, what's the point of numbering and signing the mattes? that's silly....does a painter put his signature on the frame? would any print stay in it's original mount over it's lifetime, very few i would suggest. Personally i would steer well clear of any marketing that included the terms limited, ist or restricted edn and i certainly would avoid individual certificates of authenticity, they're not necessary for other mediums, don't see why photography should be treated any different... just my opinion

wayne

Not necessarily. It makes the purchaser happy, it makes the galleries happy, and in my case, it makes the photographer happy. Additionally, I don't how it is in Australia, but having an image as part of a limited edition doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used for other purposes - magazines, calendars, etc. Personally, I like limited editions since they encourage me to go out and make more images.

 

[kaygee]

Personally, I like limited editions since they encourage me to go out and make more images.

See, that's an interesting point. I can fully understand the process of saying "I'm only going to make X amount of prints because it'll get me to go out and shoot more". I definitely respect that!

However, do you score or destroy your negative? That is something I could just never bring myself to do to make it a truly limited edition. I shudder at the thought of hurting my negative!

 

[roteague]

However, do you score or destroy your negative? That is something I could just never bring myself to do to make it a truly limited edition. I shudder at the thought of hurting my negative!

Of course not. There is no reason you can't use the image for other things when the edition is closed - even if that reason is just looking at it on the light table.

 

[wayne naughton]

Not necessarily. It makes the purchaser happy, it makes the galleries happy, and in my case, it makes the photographer happy. Additionally, I don't how it is in Australia, but having an image as part of a limited edition doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used for other purposes - magazines, calendars, etc. Personally, I like limited editions since they encourage me to go out and make more images.

yeah, maybe you're right Robert and i suppose i can get a bit precious sometimes when the topic shifts to marketing or galleries or critics or theorists or... curators (ugh). It's no different here than anywhere else, it's a struggle that's for sure.....

wayne

 

[davetravis]

Of course not. There is no reason you can't use the image for other things when the edition is closed - even if that reason is just looking at it on the light table.


Roteaque,
I love your practicality!
DT