Thank you all for your further interest - your comments have all been very helpful and instructive.
Several of you have pointed out that my contract with the original client was in fact simply to reproduce her artwork as high-quality, limited edition prints and that any files created in that process were intermediate and incidental and formed no part of that contract. I had somehow overlooked that point in the narrower issue of ownership of the files themselves. It seems that this situation may well fall under contract law rather than copyright law, so I am particularly grateful for that suggestion and advice.
I have already advised the family unequivocally that I have no intention of infringing their copyright in the images in any way, so I don't think the issue is one of unauthorised reproduction; they clearly want to get hold of the files in order to have someone else print them, as evidenced by their demands for "large format" and "full resolution" tiffs.
Wayne: Your post sums it all up neatly, I think. Many (all?) of the original paintings have now been sold, and I suspect very few, if any, of those are available to be re-photographed so, without access to the files for reprints, the clients face the situation that further edition prints are no longer available. The family originally cited the "stress" (?) of print sales as the reason for their instruction to cease these sales, but by demanding the high-resolution files have clearly indicated that they intend to continue with these elsewhere, so that was merely an excuse. There was also the comment made by one of the family following my client's death that "This could be a little goldmine for us." (that is obviously hearsay, but does perhaps illustrate their attitude).
I do like your idea of the graduated reproduction fee structure for possible future use, though I am not sure how well that would work in the UK market. I do already offer clients the equivalent of your base fee on the rare occasions where they simply need a straight, unadjusted copy - the equivalent of a photocopy, if you will - but the goal is almost always as near a perfect reproduction of the artwork as is achievable, and that is usually what they get. Not infrequently, I've had artists mistake the print for their original at first sight, so I'm confident in the quality of my work; there has never been an issue until now with reprints going elsewhere, as my clients are more than happy with that work and I very much doubt they would find the same quality or service anywhere else.
PeterAit and Brad: The temptation just to give in and wash my hands of the whole thing is very strong, and that would certainly be better for my long-term stress levels and sanity. However, I think sometimes it is necessary to take a stand when one is clearly in the right; not for reasons of false pride or anything similar, simply that otherwise the bullies in life just get away with it again and are encouraged to continue in their path.
If I do ultimately have to throw in the towel for whatever reason, then perhaps providing the original RAW files as suggested might be one way to go, though I'm still somewhat resistant to that option at present.
Manoli: Thank you for your further detailed contribution and addition to John's earlier points.
I think it's quite clear that I did have a contract or contracts with my original client: she requested me over a period of some six years to produce reproduction prints of her original paintings ('the offer'), I produced those prints ('the acceptance') and invoiced her for the cost of that work ('the consideration').
Orders for new reproductions were usually verbal and in person - there may be the odd email or two where she said she had a new painting she wanted me to do, but mostly she would simply present me with a new painting when I delivered a set of prints to her. Payment was by invoice on completion of each order, usually when I delivered the first prints or any reprints.
There was no obligation on the client to order 100 prints of each edition; as is common, these were printed 'on demand', but the understanding was that I would continue to produce these until each edition ran out, and would also sell her work on commission via my website. As part of that work I kept a database of edition numbers and simply printed either when the client herself ordered more prints or as orders came in directly from customers via the website or by phone.
Re. your point (2), in terms of the prints themselves, I have received full and fair compensation in the form of invoiced payments for those sales. The reproduction and setup fee situation may be slightly less clear; I was paid the invoiced fee for that work in each case, but that was a flat-rate fee and did not necessarily cover the entirety of the work involved, multiple test prints for fine-tuning the image, etc., which was compensated for by subsequent print sales - a 'loss-leader', if you like.
I probably need to respond further to the client by Monday, but am keeping my powder dry for the moment to see what further advice might be offered over the weekend. As you suggest, any further communication will be limited to an objective statement of the facts. I have PM'd Kikashi as suggested, so am hoping he might also kindly find time and be willing to chip in before then.
Best,
Malcolm
