You may remember, last year back in April I posted an article about Eggleston, who is a very well known fine art photographer who had just been sued by one of his collectors. The collector had bought over the course of many years over 190 prints of Eggleston. I assume he holds the largest body of his work. The photographer had reissued a new series of a previously used image in a different size and on a different paper. An image that the collector had purchased previously. The collector felt that this was a reissue rather than new works and therefore devalued his previous investment and he sued Eggleston for unspecified damages.
This is an interesting case for the Fine Art world and the Photography Business for many reasons. What a photographer can and cannot do with the work is unregulated because the art world is unregulated. The value of Fine Art Photography is subjective as it is with all art, and largely based on demand and availability. I personally felt that the collector had a valid point because let’s face it, if I was in his shoes I would be pretty upset about a reissue as well. I don’t care so much if it is a different size and paper, it is the same image. Back in the days photographers destroyed the negative and that was that. Even if the print was a new size, a new paper, the image is the same. I felt that Eggleston had made a bad judgement call that may just hurt him with collectors in the future. But, the 5.9 Million he raked in through the auction say that collectors don’t share my concerns.
You had different opinions about it, mostly photographers sided (no surprises here) with Eggleston. This case did go to court and the judge just threw it out. Below is what PDN wrote about the verdict (read the entire article on PDN’s website):
In dismissing the case, Judge Deborah A. Batts rejected Sobel’s claim that Eggleston was in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
The decision turned primarily on Article 15 of the law, which states that offering a limited edition constitutes “an express warranty . . . that no additional multiples of the same image, whether designated ‘proofs’ other than trial proofs, numbered or otherwise, have been produced.”
“The plain and unambiguous language of the statute shows that [Eggleston’s sale] is not a violation,” the judge wrote in her decision. According to the statute, artists issuing limited editions “from a master” (eg, a photographic negative) must disclose the existence of any previous editions. Because of that language, “the statute seems to contemplate and permit the very ‘violation’ [Sobel] alleges,” the judge wrote.
Where do you stand on this issue? Is it a photographers right to bank in on as much as you can while you can or was this a tight rope walk? Would love to hear from you on this.
If there was an agreement pertaining to the prints bought by Mr. Sobel, stating that no others would be made available, then I think he had the right to sue. No such agreement, then the photographer has the right to re-print, in any size or paper format!!
A thin line is correct, but I agree with Leroy Wright. Without a previous agreement the photographer owns the right of copyright, since the photographer created the image.
Fundamentally this is a moral issue. Eggleston knows very well that he undertook to limit the prints to the initial editions. Subsequently, he decided to make new editions, thus breaching his original undertaking. It has nothing to do with the law, it’s simply morally wrong and not honouring the artist’s original undertaking to his collector(s). That said, I would also disagree with the judge, who in my opinion has made a grave error in her judgement and has not interpreted existing legislation as it was intended to be interpreted.
If all photographic artists were to conduct themselves in this manner it would destroy the confidence between artist and collector. Fortunately, we are not all like Eggleston, who presumably relied upon his prominence in the world of photographic art, as an excuse to be able to exploit his buyers. In whatever case, he has done nothing to reinforce the relationship between artists and buyers, quite the reverse.
I am not aware of the Euro-American laws. When I sell any photograph, I forget about it completely because I simply sold it. Nobody twisted my arm to do so.
Let us take the example of a Master’s painting. If somone purchases it, no one expects another edition of it, then how we expect to sell another edition?
Folks may dis-agree but this is my practice.
It is my understanding that Salvador Dali would sign a blank piece of paper and printers could put whatever they wanted on; this is strictly hearsay so I take it with a grain of salt. He does have the reputation of being an artistic whore.
However it is also my understanding that if an artist changes a colour (or anything) on his artwork, it constitutes a new series, so a different size and/or different paper would technically qualify as a new series.
Legally okay, but morally, maybe not so much.
I would side with Mr. Eggleston. In addition I believe according to European law, with the sale of fine art from one collector to another also must include a royalty back to the artist… or something of the sort. I’d have to check for the exact language however I state in my sales that same jargon. The Dali story I’ve heard many times. I believe the business model of photography has changed dramatically. Anyone can order prints from the Corbis collection at Costco…. and some are very Fine Art.
I wonder if Eggleston’s original auction would have been quite so lucrative for him had a high profile judgment like existed at the time. I suspect not. The term “limited edition” obviously implies scarcity which (of course coupled with desirability) is what commands the premium. If this clarification of New York law gets generalised into a belief that limited editions might not be so limited after all, then buyer confidence will be eroded and prices will fall. I think that this may well end up affecting anyone who creates limited edition art and probably not for the better.
Since the pioneering days of Eugene Atget photography has been considered a second class medium. Museums and galleries have perpetuated this myth through ornate constructions like the editioning of prints. This defenseless strategy has been driven purely for financial gain and control. Traditional marketing of paintings depends on confining prints of any kind to a lesser status. Thus the Art Establishment has cynically awarded photography an inferiority complex.
The theory of editioning prints is based on the idea of a limited, declared, number of one size of one image. Sales success promises increased revenues as the edition is depleted and scarcity drives prices upward. In practice this rarely is the case. Additionally, if the full edition is printed at the outset it becomes a major investment in inventory and long-term storage. Printing on-demand is the practical solution, but keeping track of edition numbering, especially if there are different sizes and paper surfaces and galleries, is an exhausting responsibility for the photographer.
Since prints are not paintings, why not abandon editioning? Ultimately, the market will decide how many, what size, and the sustainable price level for each image.
And while we’re at it,”Fine Art” photographers could do well to find a less pretentious label. To announce that intention has always made me nervous. I’ve never known a painter or sculptor to proclaim that they produce Fine Art. When an artist achieves worthy results the marketplace will tell him if it’s art.