Bruce Walker wrote: >"Photographers across the country can breathe a sigh of relief. The >U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York dismissed >collector Jonathan Sobels lawsuit against photographer William >Eggleston. The case, art law experts say, has broader implications for >all artists who incorporate old photographic negatives into new work >and the collectors who support them." > >http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/885054/judge-rules-william-eggleston-can-clone-his-own-work-rebuffing
A victory for common sense, IMO. I don't think this is even really new. Photographers have long made the term "limited" apply to only prints of a specific size, for example. A limited edition *print* should be just that, a limited version of the image produced in a specific size with a specific printing technology. And I'd wager the success of the new print sale *increased* the value of the plaintiff's original Eggleston print, if anything. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
