|
 |
THE COMPLETE
GUIDE TO
LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS
How to Identify, Invest & Care for Your Collection
by: Jay Brown |
|
The Artist Holds the Rights
The copyright to any piece of artwork
belongs to the artist unless she sells or assigns them to another person. Should
someone wish to use an artist’s image for personal or financial gain, they must
get the approval of the artist or, by nature of the law, they will be infringing
on the copyright and subsequently breaking the law.
An artist’s copyright is considered infringed upon if
someone knowingly creates another original painting of the work or reproduces an
artist’s work on any product (mugs, T-shirts, etc.) without the artist’s
approval. Copyright infringement also occurs if somebody takes images out of a
book and sells them or uses any materials intended for advertising purposes for
personal or financial gain.
There are a number of problems that result when
copyright is infringed upon. The first and most obvious problem is the artist
receives no compensation for his ideas and creativity while others are able to
use them, for free, to make a profit. It’s blatant thievery.
Another problem is that in some situations, the
infringement cheapens the artist’s stature in the art world. An artist may think
that mugs or T-shirts are low-class, and they may think those products don’t
provide the quality standards the artist desires. The artist has a right to
approve or deny any product that uses his or her image and decide if the product
warrants their endorsement.
Finally, there’s the problem of saturating the
marketplace with imagery — as is the risk when pages from a book are sold either
framed or unframed. The artist has a right to sell copies of their work, to
determine how the work will be presented and to decide how many copies of each
image the marketplace should be given. If the marketplace is given too much of a
product or given an opportunity to obtain the artist’s work for too low of a
price (as is the case with book imagery), it can impact the artist’s future.
Because of the seriousness of copyright infringement, a
number of artists and publishers have successfully sued parties that knowingly
infringed on copyrights. If you ever question what your rights are to an image,
contact the publisher or the artist before doing something criminal.
Copyright Infringement
Here’s your chance to be a Good Samaritan
and protect the collectibility of limited edition prints for the benefit of
yourself and others. When someone infringes on a copyright or attempts to make a
profit selling unauthorized images from books, calendars or brochures, they are
undermining the efforts of the artists and publishers to keep the market truly
limited and collectible. If you witness this type of blatant infringement, your
interests would be best served to notify the publisher or the artist.
Upon notification, the publisher or artist will
hopefully notify the infringing party and ask them kindly to desist from
conducting further unlawful actions. In most cases, the party will claim to have
had no knowledge of the law and will stop immediately. However, if the party
refuses to stop or continues infringing on the copyright for any reason, the
publisher or the artist is likely to file suit against the seller. In the event
the seller is sued and the case goes to court, the precedent is for the artist
or publisher to win the case and be awarded damages.
Your role in the matter will only take a phone call or
a letter and it will help to protect the interests of art collectors, artists
and publishers worldwide. If enough people take action and become Good
Samaritans, then the entire industry will benefit as the marketplace will become
even stronger and more lucrative for the collectors.
The Owner of the Painting and the Control
of the Prints
When a collector buys an original work of
art, they are not buying the copyright unless a separate agreement has been
arranged, so the collector has no right to reproduce the image without the
artist’s approval. The copyright belongs to the artist. It is the artist’s
exclusive right to determine if the image should be printed.
If the artist decided after selling the painting to
make the image into a print, in most cases, the artist will have made a
transparency of the work before selling it. If it’s a high enough quality
transparency, then that’s all that the publisher and printer will need to
produce the print. However, if the artist had not made a photographic
transparency before selling the work or there was a problem with the quality of
the transparency, then the owner of the painting may be asked to release the
piece for that purpose.
In reality, if the owner is asked to release the work
for print production, the artist can’t force them to do so. Perhaps the
collector has lost track of the piece, has it stolen, or perhaps it was
destroyed by fire or other tragic event. Then, of course, it could not be
provided as requested. And, in the case of a collector not wanting the piece to
be printed, if the artist or gallery did not specify that the piece might need
to be borrowed, the collector could simply refuse.
The fact is when a print of an original work is made,
the value of the original art increases in price tremendously. Consider how many
people would normally know that an original exists — the friends of the
painting’s owner who have visited the location where the painting hangs, the
people who saw the painting at the artist’s studio while it was under creation,
and perhaps the visitors to the gallery where the painting hung before its
purchase.
Then consider how many people would know that a
painting exists if there was an edition of prints distributed to the masses of
art collectors and their friends who frequent galleries and collector’s homes
where the print might be displayed. It’s a fact. If more people know about an
original painting’s existence, more people may want to own it. The more people
who want to own it, the more value it has. It’s simple supply and demand.
When a collector agrees to lend a painting to an artist
or publisher for print production, there generally aren’t any expenses incurred
by them. Any expenses incurred to make the print are almost always paid for by
the publisher. The owner’s only expense is a little inconvenience. And, as a
token of appreciation for the time and inconvenience that an owner must endure
while their painting was being printed, most publishers will give the painting’s
owner five to 12 of the prints produced. In some cases, the total value of these
prints can be as much as the painting cost.
Insight Into the Date
As the creators of an image, artists are the
holder of the copyright. They retain that right unless they legally assign it to
someone else, giving this other person the right to own it, borrow it or share
it. According to The Copyright Act of 1976, the artist is permitted to affix the
copyright symbol “©” on the front or the back of their original art, along with
their name and the year of the work’s first publication. In other words, the
date it was first seen by the public. It is not mandatory on original art pieces
to include the date; however, most artists do follow this procedure — more as a
tradition in the art world than an understanding of the law. Should an artist
not put their name, © or date on the work of art, they still retain the
copyright if the work is truly theirs. However, this can open the door for legal
dispute and confusion.
When an artist does include a date on an original work
of art, it should be the date that the work was completed. Some artists include
it not for copyright reasons, but to provide themselves and the public with a
history of their efforts. When a work becomes a print, that date is replicated
in the process. However, if the print is not released during the same year as
the original was painted, then the date can sometimes be confusing to collectors
who think it refers to the date of the print’s release. It merely indicates when
the original art was painted.
Knowing when a print was published can sometimes offer
insight into the print’s collectibility. A print that has been out for a number
of years and hasn’t climbed much in price is showing a lack of investment
potential. This doesn’t mean that it won’t become collectible at some time in
the future, but it is an indication that the number of prints in the marketplace
to date has been higher than the demand. This is seen with prints from large and
small editions. It’s all relative to the situation. Sometimes in the art world
100 prints is too many and other times 10,000 isn’t enough.
If you care to know when a print was published, often
on the very bottom of the print’s border or on the edge of the image is a small
tag line with the name of the publisher, the copyright symbol (©) and a date.
Ideally, this should appear on all prints. It is an indication that the artist
has assigned rights to the publisher to copy the original artwork. Should it not
appear, it doesn’t necessarily mean the publisher didn’t have the right to do
the print. However, it becomes clearer in the eyes of the law when it does
appear.
(The author of this book is not
a lawyer. This section is based on his interpretation of information gathered
through the years. It is advised that any artist, collector or publisher should
consult their own legal counsel before formulating any opinions regarding
copyright information.)
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE
|
