Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?  (Read 14949 times)

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1594
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2017, 10:16:23 pm »

Slobodan, I think the issue has many tiers, if you will.  From the highest levels of auction houses and galleries, to the lowest levels, sidewalk shows.  Each level, high art and low art have different reasons for doing what they do including mid-tier level , which I think of as local arts organizations, “boutique museums” (their term, not mine).  The high stakes art does likely involve creating perceptions of scarcity, I agree, as is in fact the engine which likely drives BUSINESS on that level.  Low tier, (or low art), may employ editions, seeking to elevate itself, so potentially to some degree that is also true.

Where Alain got it right, in my humble opinion, is in relation to well established art fairs, local galleries and arts center organizations seeking to provide some level of accountability for artist participation, and a level of control, to justify their existence as arbiters of taste in local communities.  The art fairs are jurried which implies they have standards as well.  The decision to impose these regulations has little to do with scarcity, in my view, as it does a form of CYA, making the organizations seem to have done their due dillengence, having imposed these standards, because traditionally, that is the way it has been done.

On the one hand, regarding the upper levels of the art world you are absolutely correct.  From there on  down, however, I believe motivations can be mixed.  Scarcity and perception go hand in hand it would seem.  Control is the third motivation, which should not be overlooked, especially in the “minor leagues”
where for all concerned, the stakes can seem just as high, potentially leading to the majors, but in reality, mostly, not likely.

Mrk

Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1594
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2017, 10:22:42 pm »

I had this discussion with Jerry Uelsman about 15 years ago. He has probably sold more prints than any of the world famous art photographers I've ever met.. He said he doesn't believe in limited editions and he doesn't want any gallery telling him when and who he can sell a print to .  He thinks it is unnatural for photography to do it. And this is a guy who may use 4 or 5 enlargers to make one single print and they are super complicated to make consistently, but he does it. Whenever he feels like making a print and selling it he does. It hasn't stopped the big galleries from selling his work and making good money on it.

That’s a perfect example of the freedom of expression artist sticking to their position no matter what, John.  Glad to know this.  Unquestionably his talent and the quality of his works trumps all other concerns.  I’d be interested to know what his views are today, and if he has continued to hold out doing his own thing.  I suspect the answer would be yes, otherwise he would have to go back and “back date” everything. 
Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2017, 10:53:50 pm »

I answer the question, you're not losing any rights.  You may lose some avenues of sales/marketing, but that's not a right.

The market will demand what the market demands - you can supply or not, as you see fit.  The question is a bit like Kodak complaining that digital will remove their rights to sell film.
Logged
Phil Brown

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1594
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2017, 07:05:09 am »

I answer the question, you're not losing any rights.  You may lose some avenues of sales/marketing, but that's not a right.

The market will demand what the market demands - you can supply or not, as you see fit.  The question is a bit like Kodak complaining that digital will remove their rights to sell film.

True, we’re not losing any rights at this point, but laws become enacted and suddenly rights become trampled.

A response to an article about:

Limited Edition Photographs

Alexandre Buisse: "Talk about being bullied: in France, where I am a pro, it is a legal requirement to edition your prints to 25 copies or less if you want to be considered an 'artist,' which comes with all sorts of benefits and drawbacks, like the ability to license a photograph to a client. If you refuse to, that makes you a craftsman, you have a higher sales tax, and you're only allowed to shoot weddings and sell images as physical objects to the general public. I wish I was kidding."

And now several states are requiring certificates of authenticity, this being specifically legislated in California.

Once legislation begins and regulations become imposed, photographers lose the right to do things as they have always done them.  One could argue that it wasn’t a right to begin with, but constitutionalists would definitely argue the point.

I view the issue as a slippery slope, one that could end up in diminishment or disappearance of photographer’s rights.

Good luck turning those laws back once they’ve been passed.

Mark
Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17989
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2017, 08:17:13 am »

With that French and Californian examples, I see where you are coming from, Mark.

It certainly is a controversial issue, eliciting strong opinions on both sides. One of my curses in life has always been my inclination to "audiatur at altera pars" (listen to the other side). That is, even if I take a certain position (or seem to), I can still see the value in the opposing one.

I've been limiting my prints for sale because art fairs required so. But I would rather not. Not (only) because of some intellectual position on the matter, but because my other curse in life: being lazy. It is such a nightmare to keep track of what I printed, sold, in which size, did I change post-processing in the meantime, etc.

Vive la edition ouverte!

(Did I get my non-existent French right?) :)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2017, 08:26:19 am »

Almost - you got the gender right, but it would be "l'édition".
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2017, 08:58:22 am »

I keep hearing another argument, that digital, thanks to its ability to print practically unlimited amounts, make limited editions obsolete. I see it quite the opposite: precisely because of the possibility to have a gazillion copies (Ikea, anyone?), limiting it, even if artificially, makes perfect sense. We humans are hardwired to crave something unique.

This is such a critical part of the discussion, and why I asked my question to Mark about the trend. On the one hand, digital makes the "edition" part of limited editions obsolete. On the other hand, digital makes the "limited" part of limited editions more relevant (at least to some in the market).

The approach I like the best is the "pricing based on sales" approach Alain highlighted (thanks for that Mark). As sales of a specific print increase, raise the price and let the price limit the number of prints. It doesn't solve the problem of getting accepted into shows that require LE's, but that just becomes a business decision.

Alexandre's comment about the French market is creepy.
:(

Dave

Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1594
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2017, 09:03:42 am »

With that French and Californian examples, I see where you are coming from, Mark.

It certainly is a controversial issue, eliciting strong opinions on both sides. One of my curses in life has always been my inclination to "audiatur at altera pars" (listen to the other side). That is, even if I take a certain position (or seem to), I can still see the value in the opposing one.

I've been limiting my prints for sale because art fairs required so. But I would rather not. Not (only) because of some intellectual position on the matter, but because my other curse in life: being lazy. It is such a nightmare to keep track of what I printed, sold, in which size, did I change post-processing in the meantime, etc.

Vive la edition ouverte!

(Did I get my non-existent French right?) :)

Vive la photographie sans restriction et le droit du photographe de choisir librement la manière d'exposer ses œuvres, sans être gêné par les règles et règlements!

Thanks Slobodan-

Mark
Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1594
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2017, 09:21:11 am »

This is such a critical part of the discussion, and why I asked my question to Mark about the trend. On the one hand, digital makes the "edition" part of limited editions obsolete. On the other hand, digital makes the "limited" part of limited editions more relevant (at least to some in the market).

The approach I like the best is the "pricing based on sales" approach Alain highlighted (thanks for that Mark). As sales of a specific print increase, raise the price and let the price limit the number of prints. It doesn't solve the problem of getting accepted into shows that require LE's, but that just becomes a business decision.

Alexandre's comment about the French market is creepy.
:(

Dave

I agree that ultimately if one doesn’t want to do LE’s that participating, or not, becomes a critical business decision.  As Wayne Fox put it: “If you want to play in their pool, you play by their rules.”

I would find it disingenuous to do so, but if it were a matter of survival, or simply to avoid exclusion from a major sale, then it would mean taking a cold hard look at it.  But herein lies my distain: being forced to do something against my will, or be penalized.

Slobodan said at the very beginning of this thread, that to change things:

“It is undeniable perception that scarcity is linked to higher value. You'd have to fight that human perception first, then tackle salons and art fairs.”

There is wisdom in this statement.

-Mark
Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2017, 10:23:52 am »

Is the real problem that photographers don't have a voice in the salons and art fairs organizations? 
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2017, 10:36:17 am »

Is the real problem that photographers don't have a voice in the salons and art fairs organizations?

I think part of the real problem is that there are far more applicants to participate in these events than there is floor space to accommodate them, so they need some criteria for triage and they set the criteria, as selectivity is necessary. There may well be various types of artists or connoisseurs of the media on those committees that set the criteria, but that would obviously vary case by case. As well, I for one would not include the size of a print edition in setting those criteria were I ever involved in doing this (which I am not).
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2017, 10:46:53 am »

.........

Alexandre's comment about the French market is creepy.
:(

Dave

Well, seen from a North American perspective it is creepy, but seen from a European, and specifically French perspective, perhaps not so much. You need to remember that in many cases those countries are on the whole much more "regulation-intensive", if I can put it that way, than we are, and their societies are accustomed to this fact of life - though there are growing forces against this kind of structured approach. As it is, craft guilds, artist guilds, etc. have great influence in respect of market structure, qualifications and participation over there. Different cultures. It doesn't mean that such structures and rules have a high risk of being replicated at a governmental or industry-wide level over here, but at the same time all those who disagree with this kind of approach need to be vigilant, so Mark L.'s admonition against complacency is good advice.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17989
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2017, 10:59:14 am »

The problem with art fairs in recent years is twofold: too many of them and proliferation of booths ("artists") reselling trinkets. In Chicagoland, it seems that the number of art fairs tripled in the last decade, while the number of buyers remained the same. That abundance of fairs, plus the presence of trinkets, contributes to the feeling among the public that art there must be cheap (in a sense of "less valuable"). Organizers and juries are attempting to control it by, among other things, limiting print editions, with various degrees of success (and effort).

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1594
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2017, 11:36:00 am »

Well, seen from a North American perspective it is creepy, but seen from a European, and specifically French perspective, perhaps not so much. You need to remember that in many cases those countries are on the whole much more "regulation-intensive", if I can put it that way, than we are, and their societies are accustomed to this fact of life - though there are growing forces against this kind of structured approach. As it is, craft guilds, artist guilds, etc. have great influence in respect of market structure, qualifications and participation over there. Different cultures. It doesn't mean that such structures and rules have a high risk of being replicated at a governmental or industry-wide level over here, but at the same time all those who disagree with this kind of approach need to be vigilant, so Mark L.'s admonition against complacency is good advice.

Not to mention that there is a long and rich history of craft along with art in those countries, including France, where guilds, 5 year apprenticeships, certifications, admittance to special societies, etc., exist. Family generations did what their parents and parents parents did, hence names like Fletcher, Smith, Wright, Taylor, etc.  In Japan, family traditions of craft go back in many cases for 800 years or more.  So the French have made very specific distinctions between art and craft, although the lines are becoming blurred in some cases as craft begins to blur the boundaries.  As I mentioned before, when I had a significant show of sculpture in France, there was a problem whereby the local authorities tried to proclaim that since the work was made of wood and turned on a lathe, it was a product of craft, which meant the taxes charged would be obscenely higher.  The Minister of Culture himself showed up, asked me "is it art or craft?" and when I answered and showed him a poster on the wall, he then pointed to the poster made from a photograph of one of the sculptures that said simply "Mark Lindquist" above the sculpture and "Sculpture", below the sculpture.  With that he made a typical gesture spreading his hands out and then sort of walking/waving his right hand and made a "poooof" gesture with his mouth, and with a shrug, it was over.  The work was deemed art and everyone went on their merry ways.

This is a very big deal in France, but it is in America as well.  When the sculptor Brancusi's work was shipped to the US for an exhibition, apparently, if I remember correctly, US Customs tried to identify his bronzes as machine parts instead of art, and of course that raised a very big comotion:

"In 1926-27, Bird in Space was the subject of a court battle over its taxation by U.S. Customs. In October 1926, Bird in Space, along with 19 other Brâncuși sculptures, arrived in New York harbor aboard the steamship Paris.[5] While works of art are not subject to custom duties, the customs officials refused to believe that the tall, thin piece of polished bronze was art and so imposed the tariff for manufactured metal objects, 40% of the sale price or about $230[6] (over $3130 in 2016 U.S. dollars). Marcel Duchamp (who accompanied the sculptures from Europe), American photographer Edward Steichen (who was to take possession of Bird in Space after exhibition), and Brâncuși himself were indignant; the sculptures were set to appear at the Brummer Gallery in New York City and then the Arts Club in Chicago. Under pressure from the press and artists, U.S. customs agreed to rethink their classification of the items, releasing the sculptures on bond (under "Kitchen Utensils and Hospital Supplies") until a decision could be reached. However, customs appraiser F. J. H. Kracke eventually confirmed the initial classification of items and said that they were subject to duty. Kracke told the New York Evening Post that "several men, high in the art world were asked to express their opinions for the Government.... One of them told us, 'If that's art, hereafter I'm a bricklayer.' Another said, 'Dots and dashes are as artistic as Brâncuși's work.' In general, it was their opinion that Brâncuși left too much to the imagination."[5] The next month, Steichen filed an appeal to the U.S. Customs' decision.

Under the 1922 Tariff Act, for a sculpture to count as duty-free it must be an original work of art, with no practical purpose, made by a professional sculptor.[5] No one argued that the piece had a practical purpose, but whether or not the sculpture was art was hotly contested. The 1916 case United States v. Olivotti had established that sculptures were art only if they were carved or chiseled representations of natural objects "in their true proportions." Therefore, a series of artists and art experts testified for both the defense and the prosecution about the definition of art and who decides exactly what art is.[5]

Brâncuși's affidavit to the American Consulate explained the process of creating the piece, establishing its originality:[5]

I conceived it to be created in bronze and I made a plaster model of it. This I gave to the founder, together with the formula for the bronze alloy and other necessary indications. When the roughcast was delivered to me, I had to stop up the air holes and the core hole, to correct the various defects, and to polish the bronze with files and very fine emery. All this I did myself, by hand; this artistic finishing takes a very long time and is equivalent to beginning the whole work over again. I did not allow anybody else to do any of this finishing work, as the subject of the bronze was my own special creation and nobody but myself could have carried it out to my satisfaction.
Despite the varied opinions on what qualifies as art presented to the court, in November 1928 Judges Young and Waite found in favor of the artist. The decision drafted by Waite concluded:[5]

The object now under consideration . . . is beautiful and symmetrical in outline, and while some difficulty might be encountered in associating it with a bird, it is nevertheless pleasing to look at and highly ornamental, and as we hold under the evidence that it is the original production of a professional sculptor and is in fact a piece of sculpture and a work of art according to the authorities above referred to, we sustain the protest and find that it is entitled to free entry.
This was the first court decision that accepted that non-representational sculpture could be considered art.[7]"

Brancusi's Brid in Space Controversy Link

So regulations are nothing new when it comes to art, it's just that things can become distorted, ideologies confused, boundaries blurred.

It's a complicated issue and one that continues to confound.  Slobodan is correct that jurors, organizations, directors, curators, et al, attempt to control what they can, and imposing rules is about the only way they can justify selectivity which in this regard pointing to the issue of LE's , they hope will become mostly self-selecting.  (But I don't think it really does.)

Mark
Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3977
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2017, 11:36:29 am »

True, we’re not losing any rights at this point, but laws become enacted and suddenly rights become trampled.

A response to an article about:

Limited Edition Photographs

Alexandre Buisse: "Talk about being bullied: in France, where I am a pro, it is a legal requirement to edition your prints to 25 copies or less if you want to be considered an 'artist,' which comes with all sorts of benefits and drawbacks, like the ability to license a photograph to a client. If you refuse to, that makes you a craftsman, you have a higher sales tax, and you're only allowed to shoot weddings and sell images as physical objects to the general public. I wish I was kidding."

And now several states are requiring certificates of authenticity, this being specifically legislated in California.

Once legislation begins and regulations become imposed, photographers lose the right to do things as they have always done them.  One could argue that it wasn’t a right to begin with, but constitutionalists would definitely argue the point.

I view the issue as a slippery slope, one that could end up in diminishment or disappearance of photographer’s rights.

Good luck turning those laws back once they’ve been passed.

Mark

I guess in France they use that rule for VAT BTW MWSt tax differences. like it is here. We have a difference of 6 and 21% but the description is so vague for what was art in graphics and photography that different regions and smart tax advisers can get away with 6% where other studios or artists can not do the same. As it is also tricky when the tax control afterwards decides it falls in the higher category, I stopped using the low tax years ago for silkscreen productions. While at my place the artist actually painted/drew the color separation by hand on textured films etc, no original existed and I only did the printing part after we both made the color proofs, I could not persuade the tax office here in town to allow the low %. As an example; in another province the guy who got a 6% certificate had an original made by the artist, the printer created the separations by hand himself (left hand by his actual statement, he being right handed so not adding his touché to the piece, worst BS I have encountered) and printed the edition. The last color run nearly finished, the Paris based artist arrived at the airport and signed the prints at the end of the dryer. If it had been correct the printer should have signed the prints in my opinion.

With that ruling galleries started to use another route for the money coming in. The artist became the one in the middle to keep VAT low but the percentage that went to the gallery remained the same. More of the risks transferred to the artist. What today goes on I do not know, I found it messy in total.

Dutch rules (in Dutch) for this:
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/zakelijk/btw/tarieven_en_vrijstellingen/goederen_6_btw/kunst_verzamelvoorwerpen_antiek/kunstvoorwerpen/

Artist craft guilds should not meddle in this either in my opinion.

I still like the idea that prices go up with say 50% after every 5 prints made. Open ended edition. Without restrictions on the size of the print or on the interpretation of the image. And that described well as information to the potential buyers of art.

Limited print runs caused by wear of the print plates etc are a fable too. Wood engravings in box wood can stand way more print runs than limited editions suggest. Steel faced etching plates allow lots of prints too. Burned in litho images on stone the same. In the past it was not that different, artist's could rework an intaglio plate if it was worn down. In best case that was described in the sale, often not.

Edit; litho printing stones are not destroyed, the surface that contains the image is sanded away, less than 0.5 mm of the stone is lost in that proces. Grained zinc or alu litho plates will be destroyed if no intention for another print run is there. What we have to understand too is that a lot of graphic artists take a risk by making an edition of prints, the work is elaborate, a new print run for identical prints is not that easy in traditional printing techniques and who knows whether the edition will be totally sold. Five different prints in the shop gives more chance of a sale than just one made in high quantities. The artist likes to create new images, not reproduce the one that sold so well 10 years ago. I know enough retired artists that destroyed their surplus of print editions. Better than throwing them for reduced prices on the market. Quite an emotional decision as I understand it.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 06:19:50 am by Ernst Dinkla »
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2017, 12:16:48 pm »

The approach I like the best is the "pricing based on sales" approach Alain highlighted (thanks for that Mark). As sales of a specific print increase, raise the price and let the price limit the number of prints. It doesn't solve the problem of getting accepted into shows that require LE's, but that just becomes a business decision.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I've tried to figure out a way to effectively use this model for a few years now. The challenge to me is finding a way to explain it during a sales discussion without the customers eyes glazing over.

In the end I decided it really isn't that much different than selling limited edition work. On the surface it seems more palatable because it has some "logic" to it, yet it still remains a method to artificially limit the production of a piece in an effort to validate and perhaps increase the value of the product.

I still like the concept better, so I may try to figure it out someday


« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 12:37:11 pm by Wayne Fox »
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1594
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2017, 12:54:25 pm »

I guess in France they use that rule for VAT BTW MWSt tax differences. like it is here. We have a difference of 6 and 21% but the description is so vague for what was art in graphics and photography that different regions and smart tax advisers can get away with 6% where other studios or artists can not do the same. As it is also tricky when the tax control afterwards decides it falls in the higher category, I stopped using the low tax years ago for silkscreen productions. While at my place the artist actually painted/drew the color separation by hand on textured films etc, no original existed and I only did the printing part after we both made the color proofs, I could not persuade the tax office here in town to allow the low %. As an example; in another province the guy who got a 6% certificate had an original made by the artist, the printer created the separations by hand himself (left hand by his actual statement, he being right handed so not adding his touché to the piece, worst BS I have encountered) and printed the edition. The last color run nearly finished, the Paris based artist arrived at the airport and signed the prints at the end of the dryer. If it had been correct the printer should have signed the prints in my opinion.

With that ruling galleries started to use another route for the money coming in. The artist became the one in the middle to keep VAT low but the percentage that went to the gallery remained the same. More of the risks transferred to the artist. What today goes on I do not know, I found it messy in total.

Dutch rules (in Dutch) for this:
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/zakelijk/btw/tarieven_en_vrijstellingen/goederen_6_btw/kunst_verzamelvoorwerpen_antiek/kunstvoorwerpen/

Artist craft guilds should not meddle in this either in my opinion.

I still like the idea that prices go up with say 50% after every 5 prints made. Open ended edition. Without restrictions on the size of the print or on the interpretation of the image. And that described well as information to the potential buyers of art.

Limited print runs caused by wear of the print plates etc are a fable too. Wood engravings in box wood can stand way more print runs than limited editions suggest. Steel faced etching plates allow lots of prints too. Burned in litho images on stone the same. In the past it was not that different, artist's could rework an intaglio plate if it was worn down. In best case that was described in the sale, often not.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

I recently had a conversation with Mark Segal about this subject of wear of the prints. Actually, don't Ukiyo-e woodblock carvings (the techniques coming from China) pre-date stone carving?
I know a little about Ukiyo-e and I am aware that master craftsmen used razor sharp block planes to sweeten the carvings when they began to get blurry with extremely thin, light cuts.  So I never really thought about the stone plate issue being potentially the same thing as you have indicated.  So we here, an example of how traditional views on subjects can just pass on down when in fact the are as you said "fables".

Ugh - 6% vs. 21%?  That sucks.  I can't imagine having to try to justify a work of art and then be denied by local authorities.
We have a lot of freedoms in America, which for artists. is very much a safe haven.

Mark


Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2017, 01:08:57 pm »

I think it is worth noting that limiting one's edition today does not prevent new editions in the future, when new, better techniques become available, as the recent Eggleston court case proved:

https://petapixel.com/2013/03/31/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-photog-oks-reprinting-of-limited-edition-pics/
read about this some time ago. unfortunate. seems very unethical.

In this particular case there are two factors that probably don't apply to the majority of photographers out there.  one is the new editions of the work sold at a price which probably increased the value of those who purchased the original work, which was counter to what the complaint was.  Also the idea that dye transfer is a remarkably different process than pigment inkjet printing which was the basis for the argument.   I don't think changing from an epson 9890 to a Canon ipf6400 would be considered the in same light.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2017, 01:18:10 pm »

I recently had a conversation with Mark Segal about this subject of wear of the prints. Actually, don't Ukiyo-e woodblock carvings (the techniques coming from China) pre-date stone carving?
I know a little about Ukiyo-e and I am aware that master craftsmen used razor sharp block planes to sweeten the carvings when they began to get blurry with extremely thin, light cuts.  So I never really thought about the stone plate issue being potentially the same thing as you have indicated.  So we here, an example of how traditional views on subjects can just pass on down when in fact the are as you said "fables".

Ugh - 6% vs. 21%?  That sucks.  I can't imagine having to try to justify a work of art and then be denied by local authorities.
We have a lot of freedoms in America, which for artists. is very much a safe haven.

Mark

Yes true, wood-block printing in Japan long, long preceded Sennfelder's invention of stone-based lithography. I used to discuss this question of print origination and character of the editions with a very well established dealer in Tokyo who advised me (and showed me) how careful one had to be about tracing the vintages of individual pieces or sets, precisely because they are easily repeatable unless the blocks are destroyed, not to speak of the impersonations (certificate of origin? hah).

Of course, to Ernst's point, find me the tax collector who will readily side with the interpretation of a situation that points to the lower rate rather than the higher one. You would almost think those folks work on commission. The silliness of it of course reminds me of the history of the weird entanglements created by multiple exchange rates.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 609
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2017, 05:57:56 pm »

The examples of French regulation mentioned on this forum are why the Brits are trying to escape the European Union. Too much regulation at  too great a cost. (Much mixing of opinion and fact in the accompanying discussions, and a bit too much revealing of success in my humble opinion).
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up