Selling Limited Edition prints

[Simon Maney]

Hi there,
I am reworking my small business of selling New Zealand landscapes. I need to offer Ltd Edn prints but have a stumbling block that I have sat on for a while.
From my POV, there is an apparent contradiction of selling 'limited' art, which is often also available as stock photography. However, stock images of your Ltd Edn piece might also be considered 'promotion' of you unique artwork - people are aware of the image, but only a few can own a print.
When people buy a Limited Edition (photo) artwork, just how exclusive do they expect it to be, or want it to be?

Is it common to offer Ltd Edn prints (with associated guidelines - run, sizes, certification etc) also as stock images?

Should I keep my Ltd Edn's 'in-house' and offline (while I still can). On the one hand, this retains ultimate exclusivity (and security), but on the other, severely restricts 'awareness' of that image - it might be too exclusive for its own good!

Any suggestions / advice / personal experience?

Thanks,
Simon.

[deanwork]

It depends on what you designate as “stock”.  If you are selling the file that individuals can legally make their own prints from, in generally the same sizes and/or media you would be editioning, then yea that’s a real bad idea.

If however the “ stock” image is to be used in a magazine ad or online ad or what not, then I see no problem with that at all, Unless you are giving someone else “exclusive” rights, such as a total buyout of that image for a period of time or forever.

Like all business contracts, how things are written up is what is most important. What you sign is the most important.

If you use a gallery you need to specify in writing what the edition is - image - specific media - size of print.
If you sell them yourself, I would put it all on your website what your intentions are and stick by that.

If you were also allowing people other than you to make prints via stock, that should  be posted up front. I’ve never heard of anyone doing that, but whatever.......

All though there are no laws governing specific edition size and specific media, unless the terms are in writing, it is generally accepted, especially by galleries, that only one edition per image should be offered by anyone on a similar size and type of media. It IS accepted that one could start a new edition on a totally different size or totally different media. But they should not be similar. These are ethical decisions not legal ones,

But look I’ve personally known even very famous photographers tell their galleries that they are going sell such and such image out of their home for the rest of their lives with no editioning at all. The funny term “open edition” is sometimes used.

Whatever you do is your business As Long As you are upfront and honest about what your practice is.
And the best way to do that is put it in writing as part of the buyers agreement on your website. It’s like anything else, if the buyer doesn’t like the terms he doesn’t have to purchase the work.

John

Hi there,
I am reworking my small business of selling New Zealand landscapes. I need to offer Ltd Edn prints but have a stumbling block that I have sat on for a while.
From my POV, there is an apparent contradiction of selling 'limited' art, which is often also available as stock photography. However, stock images of your Ltd Edn piece might also be considered 'promotion' of you unique artwork - people are aware of the image, but only a few can own a print.
When people buy a Limited Edition (photo) artwork, just how exclusive do they expect it to be, or want it to be?

Is it common to offer Ltd Edn prints (with associated guidelines - run, sizes, certification etc) also as stock images?

Should I keep my Ltd Edn's 'in-house' and offline (while I still can). On the one hand, this retains ultimate exclusivity (and security), but on the other, severely restricts 'awareness' of that image - it might be too exclusive for its own good!

Any suggestions / advice / personal experience?

Thanks,
Simon.

[Simon Maney]

Hi, thanks for your reply, John.
What you say makes good sense to me.
Perhaps the reason I ask is that because, while artists are usually upfront with how many prints, what size etc, they sometimes aren't when it comes to that image appearing elsewhere, in a different form - eg. calendar, book, or a poster even.
I recently watched a YouTube video by Brendan Van Son. It was a useful bit of info about stock imagery, what sells, why and so-forth, based on a rights managed example. But... the 'elephant in the room' for myself was that he also has the same image available as a limited edition of 5 "in large format".
I don't want to criticize Brendan (just using him as an example), and I'm sure the stock rights management restricts 'large format prints' being made, however, two points:
1: I'm assuming a person who buys a 1 of 5 print, won't be surprised to see the same image as a magazine cover, in a book, calendar etc.
2: Brendan's prices are relatively modest, but lets say your Ltd Edn which is good enough to command a lot of money (as some do). Is it not then a risk that a company has the same image on file, even just for editorial use? [I'm thinking a solution is to only use Jpeg for stock].

[deanwork]

Well I’ve been around awhile . Really talented photographers used to supplement their income with stock. For many really good ad photographers it could even amount to 1/4 of their income. They would take trips to exotic locations once a year and shoot things they knew people would have need of. Often they would even do nice still life pieces and portraits and keep them on file and sell those all year long.

Then the web happened. All the great small creative stock agencies, usually run by photographers, designers, and artists themselves were either bought out or put out of business by the two giant billion dollar companies Corbus ( Microsoft ) and Getty ( Getty Museum) in LA. Microsoft even purchased the digital rights to all of Ansel Adams work, after he was dead of course. Every since, photographers have been pretty much giving away their intellectual property. A whole generation of young artists think this is normal now, to be one of the chosen ones at any price, because of course anyone with an iPhone is a photographer and “content provider”.  I could tell stories about one of my clients giving their work away of famous musicians for peanuts, but I’ll stop.

Anyway, what you said about using stock as a form of advertising for your prints actually sounds logical to me, IF they let you put your name on it. What I usually see stamped on them is Corbus or Getty.

But recently I’ve been noticing that Google uses stock landscapes as screen savers on their Chromecast page where you watch streaming movies and they are now publishing the photographers names below the image, so people could search for them. They should print their website address, but even their name is a steep in the right direction. Originally you had no idea whose work it was. 

I really think these are totally different areas print and stock and you should be able to do both. Just don’t ever sign anything to relinquish your own property rights . That’s the very first thing they want you to do. Use them, not the other way around. I would never dream of letting a freaking stock agency limit my editions like that unless they pay really big cash up front. Of course they won’t. All this isn’t limited to stock agencies. I see a lot of these scam shops selling other artists work to big hotel chains, hospitals, or corporate complexes where the editions can be huge, and the photographer or painters are in no way reaping those profits. That is very common. Look out. It’s best to find the corporate art buyers yourself and totally avoid the middle man. The middleman will rob you blind.


John

Hi, thanks for your reply, John.
What you say makes good sense to me.
Perhaps the reason I ask is that because, while artists are usually upfront with how many prints, what size etc, they sometimes aren't when it comes to that image appearing elsewhere, in a different form - eg. calendar, book, or a poster even.
I recently watched a YouTube video by Brendan Van Son. It was a useful bit of info about stock imagery, what sells, why and so-forth, based on a rights managed example. But... the 'elephant in the room' for myself was that he also has the same image available as a limited edition of 5 "in large format".
I don't want to criticize Brendan (just using him as an example), and I'm sure the stock rights management restricts 'large format prints' being made, however, two points:
1: I'm assuming a person who buys a 1 of 5 print, won't be surprised to see the same image as a magazine cover, in a book, calendar etc.
2: Brendan's prices are relatively modest, but lets say your Ltd Edn which is good enough to command a lot of money (as some do). Is it not then a risk that a company has the same image on file, even just for editorial use? [I'm thinking a solution is to only use Jpeg for stock].

[deanwork]

Yes, generally a stock image should be a pretty small jpeg, certainly not a big file unless you do a specific deal for them to produce prints, which in that case is not stock at all in my opinion.

Well I’ve been around awhile . Really talented photographers used to supplement their income with stock. For many really good ad photographers it could even amount to 1/4 of their income or more. They would take trips to exotic locations once a year and shoot things they knew people would have need of. Often they would even do nice still life pieces and portraits and keep them on file and sell those all year long.

Then the web happened. All the great small creative stock agencies, usually run by photographers, designers, and artists themselves were either bought out or put out of business by the two giant billion dollar companies Corbus ( Microsoft ) and Getty ( Getty Museum) in LA. Microsoft even purchased the digital rights to all of Ansel Adams work, after he was dead of course. Every since, photographers have been pretty much giving away their intellectual property. A whole generation of young artists think this is normal now, to be one of the chosen ones at any price, because of course anyone with an iPhone is a photographer and “content provider”.  I could tell stories about one of my clients giving their work away of famous musicians for peanuts, but I’ll stop. They love going after poor talented students especially.

Anyway, what you said about using stock as a form of advertising for your prints actually sounds logical to me, IF they let you put your name on it. What I usually see stamped on them is Corbus or Getty.

But recently I’ve been noticing that Google uses stock landscapes as screen savers on their Chromecast page where you watch streaming movies and they are now publishing the photographers names below the image, so people could search for them. They should print their website address, but even their name is a steep in the right direction. Originally you had no idea whose work it was. 

I really think these are totally different areas, print and stock and you should be able to do both. Just don’t ever sign anything to relinquish your own property rights . That’s the very first thing they want you to do. Use them, not the other way around. I would never dream of letting a freaking stock agency limit my editions like that unless they pay really big cash up front. That’s just weird. Of course they won’t.

All this isn’t limited to stock agencies. I see a lot of these scam shops selling other artists work to big hotel chains, hospitals, or corporate complexes where the editions can be huge, and the photographer or painters are in no way reaping those profits. That is very common. Look out. It’s best to find the corporate art buyers yourself and totally avoid the middle man. The middleman will rob you blind.


John

[Simon Maney]

Thanks, again John, some useful info.
I've spent a lot of time cataloguing and rating my images, so I don't have to release everything at once. I do like the idea of retaining some of my better images for release with no 'middle man', and to promote it that way. Guess I'll try things out with some 'test' images and see how it goes.