Previous news story    Next news story

US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector

By dpreview staff on Apr 3, 2013 at 19:12 GMT

Celebrated American photographer William Eggleston won a legal victory last month when a judge in the US District Court in the Southern District of New York dismissed a claim of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation brought by collector Jonathan Sobel. Sobel is an avid Eggleston collector who owns 190 of the artist's prints and even helped finance a 2008 Eggleston retrospective at the Whitney Museum, where he is a trustee.

The legal dispute arose because Sobel owns an 11.75" x 17.38" dye transfer print of Eggleston's famous Memphis (Tricycle) image, shown below, for which he reportedly paid $250,000. That print is one of an edition of 20 that was created in the 1980s. Last year a large format 44" x 60" inkjet print, authorized by Eggleston and made from a digital scan of the same film, was sold at a Christie's auction for $578,500. Sobel argued that by creating a new set of large format inkjet prints beyond the 30-year old limited edition of dye transfer prints of the same image, Eggleston was diluting the value of the earlier Sobel-owned print. As Sobel told ARTINFO in an interview after filing his claim, 'The commercial value of art is scarcity, and if you make more of something, it becomes less valuable.'

Memphis (Tricycle) c. 1969-1970, William Eggleston. Twenty 11.75" x 17.38" dye transfer prints of this iconic image were produced by the artist in the 1980s as part of a limited edition. In 2012 the same image was sold at auction as a 44" x 60" inch inkjet print in an edition of 2 for $578,500.

The judge, Deborah Batts, dismissed Sobel's claim, writing that, 'Although both the Limited Edition works and the Subsequent Edition works were produced from the same images, they are markedly different'. She ruled that Eggleston could only be held liable for any subsequent loss in value of Sobel's smaller dye transfer print if the artist had created the new prints using the same dye transfer process. Eggleston's lawyer, John Cahill applauded the ruling stating, 'The decision is important because it confirms that artists who work in multiples will continue to have the right to use the images that they create'. You can read accounts of the origin of the claim and the subsequent ruling at ARTINFO.

While it's not difficult to understand Sobel's disappointment at paying for a photograph he valued based largely on its scarcity as a physical object, the ruling does seem to affirm, at least in the US, that an artist owns the image itself and is free to take advantage of future technologies as they present new opportunities to present the image in different forms. The question then is, does a large format inkjet print present a substantially different form than an 11 x 17 dye transfer print? A US District Court judge has said yes. What do you think?

Comments

Total comments: 300
123
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

People miss the point. The auction value of "fine art" of any sort hinges very little on any intrinsic magnificence. The pricing is a question of sales history and sheer recognition. Another Eggleston photo of a similar subject might not sell at all, unless possibly a buyer could certify it was an opus of a "famous photographer" and wagers it might eventually appreciate. However, unless the maker cedes all reproduction rights to the buyer, only a half-wit would pay more than the value of the frame, paper, and print ink.

The photo itself does show, at any rate, where deep focus and composition can succeed more than narrow DOF and "bokeh." An old trike on a bland residential street is every bit as legitimate an aesthetic as all the pet, duck, mountain, fashion, nude, sports, or flower shots that others moon over. As stated, though, this does not have anything to do with the sales value.

0 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (10 months ago)

The photo is rubbish .. BUT thats not the point .. IF you buy something as a LIMITED edition from a run of 20

THEN Twenty should be the MAXIMUM number of prints made and a second run of
"UN limited" prints IS wrong.
when my friend used to do "Limited" editions from photos taken with his "5 x 4" camera he used to cut the negative up (A ten off would cut the neg into ten) and attach a part of the neg with each limited print

2 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (10 months ago)

Who cares about the rights this and that... Just suck in that image.

Sooo much early 70´s in a single frame!
Those that weren't there probably don't get it.

0 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

Early 70's? I'd date the trike and car behind it to about 1963. The homes may be slighlty older than that.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 14, 2013)

This is a famous photo, no doubt. And several here has come to its defence when others claims its the emperors new clothes.

Although it has some charms, I cannot really understand its greatness.

I would be very grateful to anyone that can explain to me why it is so fantastic.

1 upvote
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 14, 2013)

Roland, it's a legit question. To understand why this image is so "great" you need to understand the importance of Eggleston. It's easy to look at this (and the rest of his work) as simple snapshots now, but 40+ years ago, the idea of documenting the "mundane" details around you was new. And, his use of color as a primary focal point in his images was unprecedented - he was basically the first non-advertising photographer to use color in such a way. He was the first to see the beauty that surrounds us with every day objects, and the way he used color as a primary "character" or subject was (is) amazing. His color printing process was also revolutionary. So, like a lot of fine art, you need to understand what the image represents, and not analyze just the image. This image is symbolic of a movement, and is representative of a body of work that revolutionized color photography. If you look at my work, for example, you can see why I appreciate him so much.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Durer
By Durer (10 months ago)

If as you say "To understand why this image is so "great" you need to understand the importance of Eggleston" the value of his work is not in it, and Mr Egg is a Myth, made to sell.

0 upvotes
Davidgilmour
By Davidgilmour (Apr 14, 2013)

I am selling snapshots of my bycicle for $5,75. You can buy as many as you like.

1 upvote
BroncoBro
By BroncoBro (Apr 12, 2013)

Artists routinely print work in editions like say, 20 prints plus one artist's proof at 16" x 20". Another edition of the same image might be 3 prints plus one artist's proof at 32" x 40". Gallerists and artists draw the distinction for their clients and there it is. Check out the various photography galleries around the country and you will see that often. That is all that is at play here. Another thing to consider is that prints made closer to the original conception of the image are more valued by collectors. A print of Adam's "Moonrise from the 1940s is more valuable than one from the 1970s. These aren't my opinions, they are facts.

0 upvotes
Ryan Rosenberg
By Ryan Rosenberg (Apr 12, 2013)

I feel quite bad for Mr. Sobel.

A "limited edition" implies just that -- there are a limited number that will be produced. I disagree that large format Inkjet prints and mid-sized Dye Sub prints are so different. They are both high-quality prints. The fact that technology makes it easier than ever to reproduce images in different formats only means that artists must be more careful (or more honest) about what they are selling.

More to the point -- buyer beware. Buy an image you like and want to put on your wall. But never pay for rarity of digital media. Odds are new technology will come along and make your old image less valuable.

And artist beware. You'll find buyers will be less likely to pay for limited edition images. Why should they? Turns out you can make as many copies as you like, so they should just assume they are unlimited run images and buy (and pay) on that basis.

Oh, by the way, I'm a big admirer of the work of Eggleston. Nothing above changes that.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
LAstreetPhoto
By LAstreetPhoto (Apr 11, 2013)

Mr. Sobel is an idiot if he thinks his dye transfer print will be worth less than an inkjet print. No matter how big the inkjet print is, or how rare, I would never pay more for it than the dye transfer version. The people who payed $575000 for the inkjet print payed for a print that they have no concrete knowledge of the prints stability. On the other hand the dye transfer print will not fade and there will never be any more dye transfer prints made since Kodak stopped making the materials for dye transfer printing in 1994, oh and they are bankrupt.

I am glad that the artist was able to profit further from his work, because I think making editions is bulls#it and allows the collector to ultimately profit to a greater degree than the artist. You should only buy art because you like it, if it's worth more when you sell it that's a bonus. If a collector is mad because the artist found a loup hole in an convention put in place to make the collector feel secure in his investment too bad!

0 upvotes
Tremolux
By Tremolux (Apr 10, 2013)

Eggleston is vastly overrated.

Glorified snapshots.

Period.

1 upvote
redlizzard
By redlizzard (Apr 11, 2013)

if you say so... that final "period" says it all. Arrogance!
well, I guess most important museums and curators are wrong and you are right. Does this feel strange to you. Don't you feel weird? Not knowing about history of art or not understanding art is not a crime, do not worry. Just grab your big chunky DSLR and go for birds and little Tremolux hockey games. Great ISO, autofocus is super fast and the dynamic range is great. Keep blind, to late for you pall.

3 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 11, 2013)

This attitude reminds me of the people who walk into a modern art museum, look at the abstract or minimalism paintings, and say "what's the big deal, I could do that!" This is called ignorance. The importance of his work is not the technical composition or subject matter, but the unprecedented use of color and printing process. It's easy to look at these images now and say "I could do that" but the truth is, you didn't do it. And doing it now is just copying someone else. There's a reason why collectors and museums value Eggleston, and not "your" pictures of cats, sunsets, sailboats, and kids. Yes, it's easy to take a picture of a a tricycle now, but it's much harder to take a series of pictures with a POV and style that is totally unique to that point. If you can do that, your images will hang in museums, too. Good luck.

2 upvotes
BroncoBro
By BroncoBro (Apr 11, 2013)

My hope is that you and others with such intractable conclusions will use this media attention as an opportunity to learn something about photography and art. As I've stated elsewhere, dye transfer prints are magnificent visual objects and transcend anything you can see on your computer screen. Make a point to search some out and go see them. Also, think about why on earth someone like the curator at the Museum of Modern Art in NY would have found Eggleston's photographs remarkable enough to put together an exhibit. Before you start tossing out pejoratives, do some reading and some serious looking for a month or two. Look hard at a number of Eggleston's photographs. Look at the work of Shore, Winnogrand, Robert Adams, Friedlander. There is a rich vein of interesting material on these artists and familiarizing yourself with it will expand your visual vocabulary. There is more to life than Ansel Adams...treat yourself to it.

1 upvote
BroncoBro
By BroncoBro (Apr 10, 2013)

Many comments here remind me of how insular the photography community is. Sorry if I come off sounding elitist, but please consider what I have to say. My background is in painting originally. I came to photography in my 20s while in art school because I thought the images were interesting. Those working in one traditional art media often look at artists working in other media for inspiration. Not so it seems with photographers. With a few commendable exceptions, the comments here are similar to those found in any photographer's forum. There seems to be little awareness of photography beyond the most pedestrian types of work. My guess is that if those at fault would broaden their world view by looking at what is going on in contemporary painting, drawing, installation, video, film, and so on, this discussion about Eggleston would be far different. Taking the time to get out and look at the original physical objects when they come up for exhibition would do a LOT of good.

2 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 11, 2013)

Totally agree. For a "photography" forum, there is an alarming lack of appreciation for images that are not cats, sunsets, and kids. There's a very troubling "I can do that so why is it special?" attitude. Sad, really.

0 upvotes
BroncoBro
By BroncoBro (Apr 10, 2013)

What this ruling seems to affirm is that the physical print is the "art", not the image itself. There are how many millions of "prints" of the Mona Lisa, yet its value is not diminished (in fact, one could say that it is increased). One wonders how much Sobel is truly disappointed by this ruling and if, perhaps, he actually got what he wanted.

1 upvote
macjonny1
By macjonny1 (Apr 8, 2013)

I went out on my back patio, laid on the ground, and took a photo of my kid's bigwheel. Put a bleach bypass filter effect using ColoEfex pro, and looks just like this. Even took it in front of my neighbor's rancher for effect. Granted the bigwheel is plastic but looks the same to me!

1 upvote
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 9, 2013)

Too bad you didn't do it 30 years ago. Easy to make fun of it now, but he was using color in a way no one else was. Maybe instead of poking fun, why don't you do something unique and innovative in photography? Then, maybe you could actually sell a print.

5 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Apr 9, 2013)

Try to paint a Mona Lisa. Should not be too difficult.

0 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (10 months ago)

With a Moustache .... ????

0 upvotes
Roman Korcek
By Roman Korcek (Apr 8, 2013)

I like the Instagram-ish look of the image.

0 upvotes
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Apr 8, 2013)

Yes, regardless of the jugde's decision I think it's not fair to sell a limited ediction picture and after some time sell it again, albeit on a different format/technique.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
BroncoBro
By BroncoBro (Apr 10, 2013)

But the point is that Eggleston wasn't creating a limited edition PICTURE, it was a limited edition PRINT. I've been around the art world for 40+ years and have never seen an artist or gallery offer their work as limited edition "pictures". Perhaps that seems a casual distinction to you, but it certainly is not.

0 upvotes
JLRX
By JLRX (Apr 7, 2013)

I agree that it is somewhat dishonest (maybe outright dishonest?) to reprint the same image after having announced a limited edition. However, the original limited edition was a 'real' photographic process and the inkjet limited edition is a photo-mechanical process. Books are also photo-mechanical reproductions and having the same image reproduced many times in multiple editions of books does not dilute the value of the original limited edition, it increases it as far as I'm aware. If in this specific case only two inkjet prints were made and sold for that high amount, that would probably increase the value of the original limited edition. If they were to make 10 more limited editions in different media that would definitely decrease the value of the original limited edition.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Apr 7, 2013)

What an idiotic world where such a print can fetch anything more than a few cents.

1 upvote
Lenscraft
By Lenscraft (Apr 9, 2013)

haters gonna hate.

0 upvotes
systemBuilder
By systemBuilder (Apr 7, 2013)

Every time HP introduces a new printer, it's open season on "Limited Edition Prints" !! Geez, I'm sure glad I never feel for buying one of those, and I'm certainly never going to buy one now that I finally have the money!

1 upvote
racketman
By racketman (Apr 6, 2013)

Short interview with the photographer on YouTube, love that southern drawl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlEDqDwU98k
Eggleston himself doesn't have much time to talk about the photo in this short interview but says he knew a lower angle would make it more interesting.
To my mind these photos belong in a handsome coffee table book. However if folk want to pay huge sums to hang the images on their wall it's their money. I'd rather have Rhein II on my wall.

0 upvotes
Thinking out loud
By Thinking out loud (Apr 6, 2013)

Any given object is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. In the elite world of investment art very rich collectors are more interested in the capital appreciation of their purchases than the "art for art's sake" excuse. Personally I think the Emperor is totally naked - this is snap shot of a kid's toy. The sky is blown out, the composition is clumsy, get a grip on reality. Of all the billions of images out there what makes this one so special? Please educate me, I just do not see anything worth what these collectors, with money to burn, are willing to spend. Are we all buying into the hype, like a bunch of sheep, because the "Art" elites have made a proclamation that it should be so?

2 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 6, 2013)

Educate yourself. Try "Google." The image is representative of a movement in photography. Eggleston is incredibly important, and considered a pioneer in color photography. Like most fine art photography, there's more to the image than just the "image" per se. Do a little research.

3 upvotes
Thinking out loud
By Thinking out loud (Apr 6, 2013)

I have Googled his work- sorry I am not impressed. Art appreciation
is subjective, the crowd will have to follow the parade without me.

4 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 7, 2013)

It's really sort of sad that you've never even heard or been exposed to his work before. For someone who presumably consider photography a serious hobby, your are very ignorant. Sad.

2 upvotes
Thinking out loud
By Thinking out loud (Apr 7, 2013)

Your arrogant assumption shows your elitist mentality. Go ahead sit in judgement - it just demonstrates intolerance and a herd mentality. Can you say baaaa...my sad little man.

1 upvote
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 7, 2013)

Oh, yes. I'm such a sheep for appreciating (and understanding) one of the most important photographers in the modern era. I guess all those museums and collectors are fools, and you are the smart one who simply "isn't impressed" after you googled his images. Nice. Go take some photos of cats or sunsets or something.

0 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 7, 2013)

This is an interesting read...

http://fadedandblurred.com/spotlight/william-eggleston/

0 upvotes
tmaras
By tmaras (Apr 7, 2013)

Da sam to ja rekla neb' se niko smijo... (Minka)

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 7, 2013)

I think most agree that the tricycle picture really is not all that interesting in itself. The only interesting fact is that it is taken by Eggleston. Or maybe if you are a child toys collector.

When it comes to the fame of Eggleston? Yeah, I have looked at the article above. And I have heard about him before. His pictures, taken as a whole, are kind of cute.

But, I would say only the "elite" cares. You have to put the photos in the context of the elite back then. And, to me, this makes his photography just as boring as it looks.

0 upvotes
Raincheck
By Raincheck (Apr 7, 2013)

I'm in agreement with Roland Karlsson on this. Sure, Eggleston produced some fairly fascinating work using color in artful ways, but when I see over a half million paid for a low-angle view of a tricycle with nothing more to offer, I smell classic elitist boobery.

2 upvotes
diversal
By diversal (Apr 7, 2013)

hey everybody,
if you could sell a photo for half a million would you?
YES YOU WOULD.
and that, is all there is to it.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 8, 2013)

@diversal. Of course I would. And you may think whatever you wish about that :)

And if I regularly could sell such images and get not only a little rich, but stinkin rich, so much the better.

But ... it would not really mean my pictures are any better, just more desirable. A kind of measure of course.

BTW - I saw an interview with the photographer where he without blinking did answer questions about how he took the image of the tricycle.

I am quite sure I could not do that though. That would be outside the limit for me.

0 upvotes
WellyNZ
By WellyNZ (Apr 9, 2013)

@Thinking out loud so are you claiming to be unique and forward thinking by disliking the work of Eggelston?

You know, show that image to a 100 people, and 99 of them will have the same opinion as you. I'd suggest you're one of the herd as opposed to @Jeff Seltzer.

Baaaah!

1 upvote
Lenscraft
By Lenscraft (Apr 9, 2013)

Wow, Jeff is kinda mean.

0 upvotes
BroncoBro
By BroncoBro (Apr 10, 2013)

I totally agree with Jeff. As for "Thinking"'s assertions of being judgmental, ironically he(?), too, is guilty. What is being forgotten here is this; when Eggleston shot this and went to the considerable expense to have it printed using the dye transfer process, he made a commitment to an image that would have otherwise bee disregarded as a "snapshot" as some here claim. Instead, he went forward with the decision. The work was seen by John Szarkowski at MoMA who recognized this and many other of Eggleston's photographs as comprising a new vision of the world. If you have not seen on e of these in its original dye transfer form, you are missing out and likely that is the reason you are missing the point as they are remarkable visual objects. Shame on any of you who care about photography yet come here and put down work that you've never even bothered to look at except on your phone or computer screen.

1 upvote
dtmoody
By dtmoody (Apr 6, 2013)

I am still trying to figure out why this is an "Iconic" image and why it sells/sold for so much?

2 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Apr 6, 2013)

Don't worry Sobel.
Dye transfer print is a very expensive labor intensive process not comparable to the scanning/PSing/inkjetting. It gives also fairly long lasting colors probably it will survive some 100ys.
Your investment is not endangered.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HL48
By HL48 (Apr 6, 2013)

I can't afford these prints. But how much is the tricycle?

4 upvotes
racketman
By racketman (Apr 6, 2013)

genuine 1960s tricycle, expect to pay $100-$200

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 5, 2013)

In the meantime... http://worldphoto.org/news-and-events/wpo-news/william-eggleston-to-be-honoured-at-2013-sony-world-photography-awards/

0 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Apr 5, 2013)

What's interesting, is the edited version shown at the smithsonian site linked to below.

It has the car bumper at the photo's right edge cropped out.

It's interesting to contemplate how this happened.

For example was this done by the editor at the smithsonian site, who thought to himself, that bumper to the right of this iconic image looks a bit messy and should really be cropped out.

Or maybe the artist himself struggled with the artistic interpretation of the bumper and his decision to leave it in the frame.

Or perhaps this is a change he made when producing the new print, to counteract the possibly of a lawsuit by showing the images are not the same.

Riveting stuff, no?

For those to tired to hunt for the link I'll copy it here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/William-Egglestons-Big-Wheels.html?c=y&page=1

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Lenscraft
By Lenscraft (Apr 9, 2013)

It's entirely possible that Eggleston had different versions of the same print. Ansel Adam's 'Moonrise' went through numerous variations. It's also possible that the web developer edited the image. :)

0 upvotes
grapher
By grapher (Apr 5, 2013)

Great! Now we can have unlimited "limited editions"! ;)

4 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (Apr 5, 2013)

Having seen no side-by-side comparison of the two images (where, please?), it seems to me that the court has decided that the term "Limited Edition" will no longer carry any meaning. An artist should have the freedom to decide that there will only be one run of prints of an image, and reap the benefits of that decision. The court ruling means that artists will no longer held to their decisions. As a result, by ruling in favour of one artist, the court is causing direct financial damage to many others.

1 upvote
allamande
By allamande (Apr 6, 2013)

Totally disagree with this interpretation of the ruling. A dye transfer print is NOTHING like a digital print, the process is very different and the outcomes are VASTLY different. To characterize the digital print as a "continuation" of the original limited series is utterly wrong. The judge points out the difference between the two processes in her ruling.

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (Apr 7, 2013)

Please provide links to examples that support your argument that the outcomes are "VASTLY different". You'll notice that I requested this in the comment above, and have not been getting any. Thank you.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 7, 2013)

It is quite hard to show a side by side comparison of printing media on a computer screen.

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (Apr 7, 2013)

Scan both originals with a reference card, done.

0 upvotes
Wallace Ross
By Wallace Ross (Apr 5, 2013)

For those people that think this looks like just an Instagram snapshot. You've got it halfway right but backwards. Millions of people are taking pictures unknowingly trying to duplicate Egglestons work. Have a look at Egglestons "girl in the grass" and tell me there aren't thousands of hipsters that have taken a similar picture thinking they were the first.

3 upvotes
racketman
By racketman (Apr 5, 2013)

Seems to me like a perfectly natural image to take without reference to any previous efforts. Eggleston himself could be 'accused' of borrowing the idea from a Pre Raphaelite painting such as Waterhouse's Ophelia.

1 upvote
systemBuilder
By systemBuilder (Apr 7, 2013)

I just took a look at "girl in the grass". She looks quite dead to me. People are trying to reproduce "dead girl in grass" photos? how ghastly. Maybe they should just inkjet-print them using eggleston's originals, after all, there is no such thing as a limited edition, any more.

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Apr 5, 2013)

As a photograph of a tricycle, yes, perhaps the car on the right could go.

As an artwork though? No, it serves a distinct purpose. It redirects the eye back into the frame after you have followed the curve of the trike handle, and stops your gaze and attention "falling out" of the scene. It solidifies the layer between foreground and background and gives the road depth and scale. It adds population to the scene, creates a neighbourhood, rather than just a singular family. The colour of the car helps to balance the colour of the bike. The shadows under the car help to balance the shrubs and dark in the windows on the left, and anchor the frame.

The photograph is not just about the tricycle. I don't think it's at the level of twaddle of that Smithsonian article ("bestows on that tricycle the majesty—and ineffability—of an archangel’s throne" ... err, OK), but it's far from meaningless.

2 upvotes
Lorrin Baker
By Lorrin Baker (Apr 5, 2013)

For some reason I really like the image. Personally, I find it really off balance, though. The right side feels about twice as heavy as the left. But hey, who cares as long as we like it :)

0 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 5, 2013)

what population? there are no people there. it could very well be one of those fake towns constructed on atomic bomb test sites.

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Apr 5, 2013)

Well spotted agentul! You get the Pedant of the Year award. Toys, cars, houses, roads, etc are all signs that people likely live there. Yes, you are right that it is possible that this is actually a recreation of an actual street in an atomic test site. The inclusion of cars, houses and toys in said recreation suggests that the fake town would also likely have fake people. They just aren't in frame, ergo, suggested.

0 upvotes
systemBuilder
By systemBuilder (Apr 7, 2013)

How dare you suggest that the car bumper on the right could go?

The photo loses all meaning when the menacing car bumper on the right is removed, the character of the photograph is changed forever by this omission, as anybody can plainly see!

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Apr 7, 2013)

system, we get that you miss the point. Do you have to keep repeating yourself?

0 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 5, 2013)

A couple of thoughts...

1. In this age of modern digital printing, the notion of "limited editions" is just a marketing scheme. Limited editions used to make sense, but now with digital files, print #100 looks just the same as #1. Creating limited editions huts the artist more than the collector.

2. For all of you slamming the "Tricycle" image...go learn more about what makes an image fine art vs. decorative. Read-up on Eggleston and learn more about why his photography matters. He really started a photographic movement, and the above image is symbolic of that movement. It's an incredibly important image, if not a beautiful or technically complex image. But, do yourselves a favor, and look at his body of work.

1 upvote
Leandros S
By Leandros S (Apr 5, 2013)

I don't think the notion of limited editions is tied to the coin minting principle, where the first minted coin has the highest reproduction quality, followed by the second, etc. - or even the principle of limited variation, where print #33 gets famous b/c of its particular colours and tones, but the other 99 do not. Rather, it meshes in with the party dress principle, where a limited edition makes it likely that you'll be the only one at the party wearing that dress, or the only one hanging that picture. Ultimately, this undermines the position of artists generally, as it means that the only artwork you can trust to remain unique is that which you have produced and for which you retain the rights, with the exception of provisions such as de minimis, freedom of panorama (where instituted) and threshold of originality. (tbc)

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (Apr 5, 2013)

(continued) De minimis, in particular, is increasingly problematic vis-a-vis cameras that resolve 40MP and thus may allow "accidentally" capturing a background object in a way that resolves its entire detail.

0 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 5, 2013)

Leandros, I don't disagree. My point is that, originally, a long time ago, the notion of limited editions made a little more sense because the first print made was often the highest quality, then subsequent prints would loose a slight amount of quality each time until the plate wore out. Because of the variation in quality, lower-numbered prints in an edition were favored as superior. But, now, with modern digital files and printing, the first print and the 1000th print looks exactly the same. So the *only* reason to create a "limited edition" print is for the party dress metaphor as you describe, i.e., it's all marketing, and had nothing to do with the actual print.

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (Apr 7, 2013)

I think it's an extreme position to say it's all marketing. In the textile industry, mass production has a long history. In spite of this, to take a very typical example, when selecting a wedding dress, most brides would turn to a bespoke outfitter. This particular outfitter may have made the same dress once or twice, but if the number were much larger, customers would be put off and seek assistance elsewhere. Some people hang paintings b/c they feel that they will remain unique. Must photography necessarily be excluded from the walls of such people, b/c it is now much easier *technically* to reproduce time and again? (Yes, it can be sort-of-done with paintings, but only via the detour of scanning.)

0 upvotes
systemBuilder
By systemBuilder (Apr 7, 2013)

I started an entire tricycle art-movement when my son's limited-edition made-in-china western flyer tricycle got rusty handlebars. I inadvertently started the tricycle-art movement, because I took before-and-after photos when I sanded down the rusty handlebars and repainted them with Honda's iconic Avignon Blue paint color, made famous by the 1985 civic! It didn't matter that I did this in 2005, having already donated my Honda to charity, what matters is that I am obviously the originator of this concept, as I used an earlier (1985!) paint color in my iconic before-and-after tricycle montage! Sheesh.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Apr 9, 2013)

@SystemBuilder - very well crafted and thought-out. I liked how your post was even edited after posting, which shows true dedication.

0 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (Apr 4, 2013)

One man's "art" is another's pile of bird droppings. This isn't about what is and isn't art but whther or not two prints are "alike". Personally I think a print is a print. Dye, ink, so what? The issue should be "who owns the negative" and what should he/she be allowed to do with it? Anything he/she wants. No matter what print you may have, you'll always have a reproduction. Unless the artist sells you the "original", all you'll ever have is a reproduction. As far as I'm concerned (not that I would personally pay him for it), Sobel should be excited by the newer inkjet prints. They should increase the value of the older dye prints substantially to most real collectors, just as any print signed 1/2000 is valued higher than 1999/2000.

0 upvotes
absentaneous
By absentaneous (Apr 4, 2013)

I think art market is not supposed to make any sense.

2 upvotes
BlueStarfish
By BlueStarfish (Apr 4, 2013)

It amuses me to see the way that some people dismiss this image. There are two components, the technical and the artistic. I agree that it is not great technically (e.g. the sky is just grey, not much contrast, etc) but when I look at the image I feel something and that is the sign of art. I am not an American but it makes me feel of urban decay, of places where there are no children any more, it makes me feel and that makes it art.

Yes the technical component is important but more so is the story, all communication is story telling and this one tells a story to me - and I am from a different culture!

In terms of what it is worth, well that to a degree is divorced from the image and a factor of the market.

When I look at an image like this I do look with my brain but also my heart, maybe we all should.

2 upvotes
Dean Lapinel
By Dean Lapinel (Apr 4, 2013)

I understand what you state but this was my era and if anything it's simply child perspectve nostalgia. Urban decay?? Our rikes and bikes were always left outdoors on the lawn (no theft) and everyone's "ride" was full of rust...back then.

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 7, 2013)

Urban decay? You have a fair amount of imagination :)

This image is taken in an era when the American society was at its top. And the houses you see are the American dream.

The image is simply taken when the kids are at school or not awaken yet.

0 upvotes
nonuniform
By nonuniform (Apr 4, 2013)

I'd rather look at this print all day, rather than the endless photos of landscapes at sunrise, sunset, Yosemite, all the bad copies of any famous Ansel Adams image, and yet another nude woman posing with a rock, bush, lying with an arched back in the desert, on the beach, and all the random, banal photos that pass as "street" photography. Basically, anything taken by people whose only concept of art is to copy what has already been done and wait for kudos in their exact reproduction of other people's vision.

5 upvotes
Vlad Didenko
By Vlad Didenko (Apr 4, 2013)

It is interesting that Judge took a formal, not social angle of the issue. Formally, yes, the photographer is right and the collector is wrong. However, in the photography world is munch more contract-minded, than the world of art. I have not seen any art dealer to go into a contractual detail - nor contracts are signed - at the time of a limited print purchase. It just does not happen as a norm. So yes, the limited print (or otherwise copy) market operates on a loose and informal expectation. And the judge clearly de-prioritised that.

The implicit public contract of an artist when selling a limited edition is not that of the number of copies. It is impossible to evaluate in a modern world (see comment). The artist's implication is that "I will not do things to devalue what I am selling". That's what in the words "limited print". And by producing a larger modern and more desired copy and asserting his right to keep doing so the author makes every collector question that integrity.

3 upvotes
Vlad Didenko
By Vlad Didenko (Apr 4, 2013)

What I mean when said that it is impossible to evaluate, is that there are many forms of reproduction, which do not seem to encroach on valuation of limited art. Catalog and internet reproductions, sale banners, event posters, etc. - they actually raise awareness of an artifact, thus aiding the valuation, not hurting it. I am not sure how the hearings went, but it should have been filled with art dealer witnessing. Yet even that by itself is problematic, as any reasonably seasoned lawyer would (by questioning) show that an art dealer's testimony is based on perceptions and not hard data.

2 upvotes
Alec
By Alec (Apr 5, 2013)

Well put, Vlad. Had Eggleston communicated the intent to make further (larger) prints of the same image in the future, his prior "limited" edition would not be so "limited", and as such would probably be valued less at the time.

What this ruling did was communicate, on ALL photographers' behalf, the possible intent to make further copies of their self-proclaimed limited editions, which (enacted or not) inevitably puts price pressure on what they are trying to sell today. As if up and coming photographers need more price pressure.

This ruling, in my book, is unfair and damaging in that, while it can be argued either way, it sides with the 0.01% elite at everyone else's expense.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
nonuniform
By nonuniform (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm reading the comments here, and I'm reminded of the thread a few months ago about Stephen Shore.

Clearly, this is forum where people talk about gear, not art, but I am really amazed at the narrow-minded, "a five year old could have done that" criticism.

I shouldn't be surprised, but the fact that this photo angers so many people makes me smile. That's success.

6 upvotes
AZBlue
By AZBlue (Apr 4, 2013)

Anyone who thinks this is art probably also thinks the same thing about Joe Klamar's portraits last year of Olympic athletes. Total garbage.

1 upvote
Templer
By Templer (Apr 4, 2013)

Those that "think" are thinking too hard and it probably hurts. Those that "know" just know. That's Art. It seems your not destined to make art. You need to relax.

0 upvotes
nonuniform
By nonuniform (Apr 4, 2013)

Feel free to be mature and respect that some people will like Eggleston's work, and some will not. Whatever your reason for not liking the work, doesn't make you the arbiter of taste for everyone else.

0 upvotes
Wallace Ross
By Wallace Ross (Apr 5, 2013)

Well I think it's art and don't really care about the Olympic picture tempest in a tea pot. Egglestons place in art history is secure you should educate yourself, even just a little bit might help.

0 upvotes
AZBlue
By AZBlue (Apr 4, 2013)

OMG... Eggleston uses his child's tricycle as a focus target to test his Nikon F3's focusing performance. I'm rushing out right now to take a picture of bird poop. Undoubtedly that will be worth a half million dollars as a statement about our current political climate.

I'll be rich and I'll be retiring before any of you guys! haha

2 upvotes
Templer
By Templer (Apr 4, 2013)

WOW! Quite shocked and saddened at the percentage of posters that are actually slamming Eggleston's work. This is a "Photography" site after-all. You would assume (I know, bad word) that maybe those that are serious about the craft of...ah hemm....Photography.... would maybe know something about the history? Eggleston is after all credited as being one of the founding fathers of contemporary color....wait for it....PHOTOGRAPHY. His body of work is extensive, consistent and highly regarded by anybody that knows anything about..PHOTOGRAPHY. He was probably photographing tricycles before most of you naysayers could ride one. His prints cost big money because he was doing his thing, his way when nobody else was. If I had the money like Sobel I would love to own an original. Some here would probably
take the money and go on a Walmart shopping spree. Better yet grab a D800 and some ND filters and go shoot a waterfall in the forest...and make sure it's centered.

5 upvotes
AZBlue
By AZBlue (Apr 4, 2013)

The only way to own an "original" is to physically possess the negative or slide. Today, you'd have to own the electronic file and ensure no other electronic copies exist. Good luck with that.

2 upvotes
Tom Zimmer
By Tom Zimmer (Apr 4, 2013)

All the more reason to never delete a raw file... Oh, Wait... I shoot mostly jpegs. Ohhh... Nooooo....

1 upvote
Templer
By Templer (Apr 4, 2013)

Jpegs.. cool....you can be famous like Ken Rockwell.

0 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Apr 4, 2013)

He may be a great photographer but that doesn't mean all his photographs were monumental achievements in art. The hero worship that goes on in the art world tends to reevaluate any product of an established artist even if that work was produced long before the artist rose to prominence or even to the point of skillful execution in their medium. It's an interesting snapshot but IMO little more. The fawning evaluation I linked to below is simply an absurd example of this hero worship.

A similar photo posted on any photo forum, lacking association with a famous artist, would be dismissed for any number of reasons.

2 upvotes
davidrm
By davidrm (Apr 4, 2013)

Yes, you're absolutely correct about the collective artistic sensibility of the average photo forum...

oh, sorry, was that not what you meant?

2 upvotes
Templer
By Templer (Apr 4, 2013)

So every other prominent artist that you know of..."all" their works were monumental? Really? You need to do some research. Egglston's credited for his style/vision for his time...just like every famous/ well known artist through history. If you asked him I'm pretty sure he would say he's not a hero just a guy with camera and a passion. I also pretty sure he photographed what
he thought was cool and probably didn't think of asking you for advice. Geeez big mistake. I'm sure going down in history as a super famous contemporary photographer who commands hundreds of thousands of dollars for his rehashed snaps must really suck. Life is so unfair...boo......hoo.

0 upvotes
Templer
By Templer (Apr 4, 2013)

Your absolutely on target. Erring on the side of brevity would have saved about 5 mins..: ) But some times there needs to be some splainin. Makes me feel better. Besides I really do love Eggleston
(photos) He shouldnt be getting a bad rap

0 upvotes
Vibrio
By Vibrio (Apr 4, 2013)

The judge should have committed Sobel to an asylum for paying £250K for a print of that.

3 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Apr 4, 2013)

Brilliant! Positively Brilliant! It must have taken a minute of more to compose and shoot!

It looks like he was kidding around and went for a giant tricycle effect.

I'm sure there are those who spend hours analyzing how the photo presents a deep and insightful commentary on Western society. :-)

3 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Apr 4, 2013)

Just for grins I looked for such an over-analysis. Here it is... :-)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/William-Egglestons-Big-Wheels.html?c=y&page=1

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (Apr 4, 2013)

well, maybe he was going for the "when i was a child it seemed huge" effect. which is nice and all, but then there's the problem of the background. because the trike is rusted, you can't fully evoke a childhood perspective, since the trike should have been new. in a suburban american setting with the cliche home and car the rusted trike is out of place - the child's father (it looks like a boy's model) would have at least given it a fresh coat of paint, assuming it was some sort of hand-me-down. more reasonable is that the parents would have bought a brand new one. so the idea of "i remember when i was an innocent child and my trike looked huge" is undermined by the details. the result is an image that will feel familiar but wrong at the same time.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 4, 2013)

You don't have to like the image, of course. That's down to personal taste. But in the US, this Eggleston image is immediately recognizable to anyone who has followed fine art photography over the last four decades. Eggleston played a significant role in the acceptance of color photography as a 'serious' medium in the fine art market. And Memphis (Tricycle) is arguably the image most-associated with Eggleston over his entire career. Fame of both artist and print greatly influence the price someone would pay for it.
The significance of this image in the fine art world has long ago been established, thus it commands a high price.
Also keep in mind that the artist almost always receives the lowest price for the work. By the time the dye transfer print reached $250k in 2011, it had long left the artists' hands.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
AZBlue
By AZBlue (Apr 4, 2013)

This just goes to show that you don't need to have any talent as a photographer to "make it" in the business. People love to read meaning into meaningless photos. What a racket!

1 upvote
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Apr 4, 2013)

Can you show us one of yours that has more resonance? None of the 16 in your gallery evoke anything for me, despite you having a D800 and a bunch of expensive lenses. It's not art if it doesn't make anyone feel anything.

1 upvote
plevyadophy
By plevyadophy (Apr 5, 2013)

@SRT201
That link you posted to the Smithsonian site regarding this kiddies bike is absolutely hilarious.

I read one paragraph and couldn't stomach the rest lest I throw up.

What a load of arty farty pseudo-intellectual twaddle about a crap piccie of a bike.

Do the art crowd go on a training programme to speak like that, or are they alien beings from another planet?!!!!

:o)

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Apr 5, 2013)

You got all that from the first paragraph that basically just names the image and sets the scene? You must have a sensitive soul.

0 upvotes
jalywol
By jalywol (Apr 5, 2013)

You know, this photo is really remarkable on many levels. It just puts me right in that time and place and with all the possible connotations that that evokes. And that, more than anything else, is what really defines good art. It opens a door to thought and discourse, and allows an emotional or mental exploration that perhaps would not have happened otherwise.

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (Apr 4, 2013)

Sobel himself actually has devalued Eggleston's work suing him. Now, people has become a bit skeptical buying his prints...

2 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Apr 4, 2013)

The concept of an original is meaningless for a product where every piece is a copy. For a non-functional object the value is only in the eye of the beholder, and the market value is a collection of such opinions. Scarcity does not create value, I could make only one print of my photos and they'd still be worthless. If the image on a paper is worth 250 grand to Sobel, I don't see why that would change if a million prints were made and handed for free. It's his view of the value, not something tangible. What if he had deemed the picture worth 25 million instead? What would he think now? He saw that value in it when he paid up. Such is the nature of art.

Obviously Sobel only bought the print for the monetary worth he presumed, and not for the artistic one, which can't be taken away. I would see that a photograph is a poor medium for that, but it's his money.

If what Eggleston did was morally right is debatable, but unless agreed in writing, he certainly has the right to keep printing.

1 upvote
DukeCC
By DukeCC (Apr 4, 2013)

I don't care for the framing...Google 'rule of thirds', why don't you? That would also allow you to crop out that vehicle on the right. It doesn't need to be there. The colors are a little bland as well--check into different picture controls to bring some interest. That white sky is very uninteresting. If you cannot re-shoot on a better day, perhaps a polarizing filter could help. I am not a fan of HDR, but this might be a good application for it. That would allow you to expose for the sky and the subject. And speaking of the subject, you might want to find a more interesting one. Barring that, you could clean up some of the rust spots and such in Photoshop. All in all, not a terrible effort for a beginner, but you will/can do much better with practice.
Oh, wait--did you want CC?

5 upvotes
ptodd
By ptodd (Apr 4, 2013)

I presume this was a deliberate wry allusion to this tendency: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

0 upvotes
ptodd
By ptodd (Apr 4, 2013)

I presume this was a deliberate wry allusion to this tendency: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 4, 2013)

Even tho he meant it as fun, it does indeed look like snapshot.

1 upvote
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Apr 4, 2013)

Forget the copyright issue. It seems as though I should start focusing on mediocre snapshots of kid's playthings so I too can get rich! :-)

5 upvotes
Wallace Ross
By Wallace Ross (Apr 5, 2013)

Yes D200_4me you go back in time 40 years and do that and pick me up a 100 ounces of gold while your there.

0 upvotes
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Apr 4, 2013)

Photographers & dealers create editions for several reasons. These include limiting the number of prints in order to artificially limit supply & also increasing demand not only for a particular image but for other images by the photographer. If an image is limited to an edition of 10, however, a few AP's are permitted. The limiting of availability is a contract between the photographer & the public. It is common for photographers to produce editions in different sizes. (See gallery & individual web sites for examples.) In Eggleston's case, it appears neither he nor his dealer(s) stated at the outset the image in question was available in different sizes, so the production of a new version in a larger size breaches a stated agreement. The other reason photographers limit editions is to "force" the public to look at other work. Some photographers even increase the price of succeeding images WITHIN an edition to "force" the public to look at other, less expensive images .

0 upvotes
panpen
By panpen (Apr 4, 2013)

$500k for a print? Not to mention the bike is off centre too.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Apr 4, 2013)

You might not understand the contemporary art photography method. This is not a staged photography, and all the imperfections seen here is either his intention or accident.

0 upvotes
panpen
By panpen (Apr 4, 2013)

You must be kidding. It was sarcasm. Duh

1 upvote
Narcosynthesis
By Narcosynthesis (Apr 4, 2013)

My question is was it ever said that the original run of 20 were the only prints that would be made of this image?

Photography is a medium where images are readily reproducible, and unless it was specifically stated there would be no more made of this image, I would work on the assumption that there may be more made in the future - in a different form if the earlier images were a limited edition (different sizes, finish, process) but still the same picture.

1 upvote
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (Apr 4, 2013)

And that's exactly what the judge ruled - any new print must be identical to the original prints in order to dilute the original limited number of 20 identical prints, and hence their value.

As opposed to the edition itself being limited - usually to just the one-off. So her ruling infers there can be many editions as long as each one's prints can be differentiated somehow.

Gramatically if not legally, the adjective 'limited' applies to the noun 'edition', not to the number of prints within that edition. Otherwise, we'd call it a 'limited print run'.

1 upvote
E Dinkla
By E Dinkla (Apr 4, 2013)

There is a similar case in the Netherlands, the production of an official silkscreen print with queen Beatrix portrayed in a limited and numbered edition, to be used in government buildings. It went wrong as the print run was not big enough to both equip all the buildings and satisfy private collectors. Stupidity exposed there by the organisation that ordered the print. A second print run was needed and the edition collectors went to court. The judge ruled that the second run of the print was allowed if it was used for government buildings only and the prints should be destroyed as soon as the queen would no longer be in office. Here social interest prevailed above the interests of the buyers but the limited edition principle was respected. The queen abdicates at the end of this month and I wonder whether this dictate is followed to the letter .... if there are not already collectors that got access to prints from that second run when buildings were abandoned over the last 32 years ...

5 upvotes
E Dinkla
By E Dinkla (Apr 4, 2013)

There is a similar case in the Netherlands, the production of an official silkscreen print with queen Beatrix portrayed in a limited and numbered edition, to be used in government buildings. It went wrong as the print run was not big enough to both equip all the buildings and satisfy private collectors. Stupidity exposed there by the organisation that ordered the print. A second print run was needed and the edition collectors went to court. The judge ruled that the second run of the print was allowed if it was used for government buildings only and the prints should be destroyed as soon as the queen would no longer be in office. Here social interest prevailed above the interests of the buyers but the limited edition principle was respected. The queen abdicates at the end of this month and I wonder whether this dictate is followed to the letter ... if there are not already collectors that got access to prints from that second run when buildings were abandoned over the last 32 years ...

0 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 4, 2013)

Modern (digital) photography is easily to reproduce, because we've got almost all of the data used to create the photo in a format that doesn't degrade (if we don't use digital restriction management to prevent archiving ... ).

Classic negatives do degrade and won't allow you to keep reproducing the exact same photo for all eternity.

And even modern media only allow for endless reproduction if and only if the entire process is documented (ie : exact inkts and print medium etc). Anything else will result in a new 'limited' edition by default.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Lorrin Baker
By Lorrin Baker (Apr 5, 2013)

I agree. Yes, the word "limited" is important. But so isn't the word "edition".

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 4, 2013)

It seems that Sobel bought a PRINTED COPY and not the PHOTO.
Since he's paid for the material version of the creation, this piece is his; to have and to hold, even to set fire to if he so wishes, but the original photo and all the authoring rights remained with the autor.
If Sobel wanted to own the PHOTO, he should have had bought the PHOTO. The author's rights would have remained with the Eggleston, but no subsequent copies and/or sales would have been possible.
Quite aside from the fact that the sums discussed here can (or should) be used for better (or less selfish) purposes, Sobel's ideas of "values" are the perfect example of what's wrong with this World.
His precious investment could have fed an orphanage somewhere for a long time, by the way. Somehow, he could not think of that...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Apr 4, 2013)

As far as I can tell this case was not based on copyright - I get that.

But isn't copyright and derived works based on wether a work is substantialy different or the same?

If an image printed on a different technology, in a different format "are entirely different, as objects" then can I take my digital camera, photgraph an original Egglestone (with my M43 camera, different media and format) and then produce copies?

In these cases:
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/07/12/jay-maisel-defends-his-copyright-and-is-attacked-for-it-online/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case
the work was different but similar in one case and cleary derived, in a different fomrat and media in the other.

If it is accepted as a matter of fact (as it now appears to be) in the US that reproducing an image in a different media or formart creates an object that is "entirely different as na object" how does that bode for copyright?
Any lawyers in the house?

1 upvote
jtan163
By jtan163 (Apr 4, 2013)

It seems to be to rely on the objects being completely different is disingenuous.
I woud think it would be more sensible to suggest that the original edition was limited.

There are no more copies that were created in that edition.

However this is a second edition. Which may or may not be limited. As long as the original can be authenticated it is sitll one of of an edition limited to 25.
The very word edition, seems to indicate that others might follow, and limited edition implies that other editions may exist, they will just not be members of the same edition as the limited edition in question.

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Apr 4, 2013)

I wish I could sell a picture of a kids bike for a tenth of that.

You see better pictures on that Instagram thingy.

I think Mr. Slobel needs a reality and IQ check.

The money is best put to use helping the american poor, of which, there is an increasing number.

2 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 4, 2013)

The ability to sell a product as 'art' is what separates the poor (artists) from the wealthy.
That and a lack of common sense ...

btw : there are poor people outside of America too ;)

1 upvote
wlad
By wlad (Apr 4, 2013)

should have thought about it at the time he allegedly paid 250k for the first print.

I wonder if people are getting dumber, or if they are just deliberately exploiting the US legal system.

Who the hell spends 250k for a freaking paper ? I could understand it if it was the original Magna Carta or something of similar historical value. But a freaking photograph ? Give me a break.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 300
123