Digital BW, The Print

on 11/18/02 11:59 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Your "contract" as you say above, is not worth the paper it's
> written on if you can arbitrarily decide in three years to introduce
> yet another edition of that same image.
> 
> When that buyer is standing there with checkbook in hand,
> pondering the purchase, the buyer thinks at that point that only
> 30, or 50 of these prints will ever be in circulation. How fair is it of
> you to then decide later on, (after the image becomes popular),
> that you're going to come out with a new 50-count Sepia Edition
> in a smaller size? I say, quite unfair, and borderline sleazy.

Mark -

I've been called many things in my time but up to now, sleezy hasn't been
one of them and I suggest that's a word not to toss around lightly. I think
you misunderstood my comment. I said "Watermark or not, any limited edition
run is only as limited as the integrity of the artists allows. Thus, I would
also submit a certificate of authenticity with any limited edition print
stating its number and the total number of that run. It should also specify
if additional quantities might be made available at a different size or in
sepia instead of cool black, etc., and, if possible, how many. This is your
"contract" with the buyer and will assure the buyer that you will stick to
what you've stated."

I'm not suggesting that you do additional runs at a different size or sepia
toned etc. but simply that if you ort anyone else intend to do so you should
state this on the certificate. As I said, the key issue is the integrity of
the photographer. I would think you might want to know me before you suggest
that I might be "sleezy."

Thanks,

Rick Colson