On May 1, 2006, at 7:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
The galleries I deal with interpret it this way. If I make a limited
edition of a particular image in 13 X 19 inch size, once that edition
limit is reached I am never to make any more of that image, in that
interpretation, in 13 X 19 size. I am perfectly free to do another
edition in a different print size, or to make a new edition in the
same size with a different interpretation (different crop, different
tonality, etc.). I would never destroy the original negative or
digital file. I am free to market that as a stock photography image,
have postcards made, have posters made, etc. None of that affects
the status of the limited edition.
Bob
