Un-limited editions

[RoboFramer]

Our Fine Art Trade Guild has always had a stance that limited editions should be reproduced in NO OTHER FORMAT.

But, if this below, posted on the UK framers' forum is true - then what we are witnessing is an example of 'back-pedalling'. The simple truth is that a lot of publishers have been 'milking it' for years - i.e. the number in the print margin says 1/195, but the certificate of authenticity says different.

Then the same image comes out as a card (sometimes the card comes out first!) or a cross stitch kit, or an open edition, maybe with a different image size, or on a calendar.

I believe that it is a case of our trade organisation - knowing fine well what publishers are up to, rather than try and enforce its rules on them, probably under pressure to do so from the likes of me, have weighed up the pros and cons and decided that these publishers help keep them afloat, through advertising; through sponsorship - the likes of me (you and I) are small potatoes - so, they have simply amended their rules, which I, and no doubt the like of me, admired.

As far as I am concerned the FATG has shot itself in the foot - but will they lose any sleep over that? NO! because for every one of me there are another ten that just don't give one!

Bit of a long story - sorry - just did not have the time to do it quicker!

My main point/question, I suppose is this - "I BELIEVE THAT THE NUMBERS IN THE MARGINS OF ANY LIMITED EDITION PRINT SHOULD DISCLOSE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF REPRODUCTIONS - IN ANY OTHER FORMAT - from the original"

What do you think?

(I realise that this is a British trade organistion - but am asking what would YOU think if yours, basically, said to YOUR publishers "Do what you like - as long as you disclose it - not up front on the print itself but on some sort of 'PS')

Court of the Guild amends Print Policy

The Fine Art Trade Guild Court has made important changes to its print policy.

While strongly recommended that all artists, fine art printers and publishers print to at least the Guild standards, and that galleries should trade in these, it recognizes that other legitimate practices can be accepted as ethical trading where full trading disclosure documentation is available with the print.

Everyone agreed that transparency is the crucial thing. Full disclosure can leave customers in no doubt about what they are buying and whether a commitment has or has not been made to restrict use of the image.

Amendments to the Guild Policy for Fine Art Prints will be explained fully to the trade in June Art Business Today and will also be on the Guild website.

The change will enable strict adherents to the Guild Standards to market their compliance strongly for competitive edge and greater margins, whilst it opens up the opportunity to others to cross-market chosen images as cards, household goods and other items as well as producing a defined limited edition print range.

The key to ensuring consumers are not being misled is crystal clear and comprehensive disclosure of all uses of the image that will be authorized on a certificate of authenticity available with the sale of each print.

 

[GH]

John,
I agree 100%. Put the info on the print.

When a customer buys a LE print they are buying the image and the exclusivity denoted by the 1/500 or whatever it happens to be.

If they were aware that there may also be thousands of other versions of the same image I think it is fair to say it would affect their buying decision.


George

 

[Bill Henry-]

Unfortunately, one of the key words in that policy is “recommends”, so if joining the guild is not compulsory, the statement has no real teeth.

Thus, we’re back where we started from; the transparency that would be good for us all remains translucent at best.

… sort of like acid free, conservation, archival, museum.

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean … neither more nor less” – Humpty Dumpty