I agree with you Brian. Selling limited editions of a work, in this case a print, implies one won't produce and sell 'similar' limited editions. Allowing it on the technicality of how the print was produced seems wrong, largely because the collector (at least if it was me) isn't buying it for how it was produced, they're buying it for the image and it's artistic value.
On the other hand the fact that the new work is much larger in physical dimensions, puts it in a different light. There's clearly a difference between a 17 inch print and a 5 foot print. As I write this I find myself generally agreeing with the decision, but not because of the means by which the artwork was produced. I don't think the collector has a valid claim that a 5 ft print dilutes the value of his print any more than a book containing the photographer's work dilutes the value.of a print. It would be interesting to know what the terms of the earlier sale were, as that would have a bearing on whether the collector has a valid claim. Humorously, maybe he's upset because the buyer of the larger print got more bang for his buck. Tom > > The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York dismissed > > collector Jonathan Sobel?s 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 > > > Yes - saw that mentioned on TOP. It still seems wrong somehow. > > > -- > Cheers > > Brian -- 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.
