Eggleston News

<p><a href="http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/apr/05/ny-collector-sues-memphis-photographer-william-egg/">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/apr/05/ny-collector-sues-memphis-photographer-william-egg/</a></p>

<p>I couldn't find this news anywhere on this site, and I'm a little dissapointed. Frankly, it's kind of a big deal.</p>

<p>That ruling should be interesting.</p>

<p>Mike Johnston has some more info, with links to a lot more, here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/04/the-plot-thickens.html<br>

I haven't figured out where I stand on this, but there is some merit in the discussion.</p>

<p>Where do the rights of others end and the photographer rights begin and stay<br>

this will be very interesting </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see how far this goes, if it goes at all. Artists have done "limited editions" for years. Has there never been a question of limited edition owners rights versus copyrights? I'lll bet there's a legal precedent, somewhere.</p>

<p>Anyway, it's certainly nice to know that Mr. Sobel is one who appreciates art for art's sake...</p>

<p>To my mind, "limited edition" means "only printing X copies at this time". It does not mean "there will never be another edition." Also, the new prints are neither the same size nor printed by the same method as the old ones. Whether this dilutes the value of the original prints is for the market to decide. But I think it's fundamentally idiotic for anyone to think that something as easily reproduced as a photographic print will never again be copied.</p>

<p>I'll be interested to see where this goes but, frankly, none of the players in this are going to end up happy.</p>

<p>If it becomes front page news, photographers and others, who create artificially limited editions, may find themselves having to re-evaluate their business models.</p>

<p>And Disney keeps reissuing the restored version of "Bambi" on a limited run DVD release and pounding us over the head with the same TV commercial that seems to run every 5 years threatening us to buy now before it is returned to the "Disney Vaults" (next to Disney's frozen head-<em>thanks SNL</em>) implying it will never be reissued again.</p>

<p>I'm reminded of a documentary (can't remember the title now) that played on the Ovation cable channel that portrays modern art collectors and buyers as being only in it for the money by the time the once <em>"first appreciated for its art"</em> limited edition has been sold far up the appraisal food chain. Some of these investors clearly demonstrated in this documentary they didn't even know what the hell they were buying or its cultural meaning.</p>

<p>This is another example why business before art is never a good idea for anyone who appreciates art as a culturally enriching medium that doesn't involve money. Hope this makes suckers out of all of 'em.</p>

<p>If I were Eggleston, I'ld be watching my back and preparing my own meals. The elderly cultural icons seem to be dropping like fly's lately of "natural causes", whatever that means.</p>

<p>Two souls, one thought, Tim.</p>

<p>Yes, Ann, and now you know why we Americans had the housing bubble that screwed up our economy.</p>

<p>A house is to live in, not buy and flip.</p>

<p>I think there's a biblical passage I remember..."Be careful where you place your treasure for there your heart will lie." or something to that effect.</p>

<p><em>To my mind, "limited edition" means "only printing X copies at this time". It does not mean "there will never be another edition." </em><br>

<em></em>However, to many collectors and gallerists, that is <em>exactly</em> what it means. Obviously, that's how they attempt to protect (or increase) the value of the work. Absent a clear definition or a contract, both sides are assuming, and that's where a lot of lawyers make money. </p>

<p>It seems hard to keep our treasure safe these days, maybe one might as well sell off the whole treasure and let the heart be free again.<br /> <br /> It is funny how people buy into the concept of limited editions and high prices. If it is not regulated in a good contract, the bubble could burst. You will have no guarantees.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A New York collector claims in a lawsuit that photographer William Eggleston's decision to sell oversized versions of some of his iconic images has diluted the resale value of the originals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is the gist of it, if you still care.</p>

<p>Of course it will dilute the resale value of the "originals" if more versions are sold. But, if no one agreed to NOT sell more versions, then Eggleston can't be blamed.</p>

<p>Let me add one more thing. I have lived for a while and this is one of my current beliefs:<br /> <br /> "It has nothing to do with who is right, it has everything to do with who has the best lawer."<br /> <br /> Sadly, this has been the outcome of more than one lawsuit. Should it be like this? No. Is this what happens in real life? I believe that this happens in most lawsuits today.</p>

<p>So the value of a copy of a piece artwork that was first highly valued on its own by an institution as reputable as MOMA for its artistic value and enrichment, is made less valuable by whatever an appraiser thinks. </p>

<p>Not much faith in Eggleston as an artist and MOMA I guess. I thought his art stood on its own as a thing of value. Not what an appraiser says.</p>

<p>I'm not in the business of buying and selling art so, if there's some established complex legality about the business of art evaluation that I'm sure I'm not aware of, I really don't care.</p>

<p>Just curious, wondering if Eggleston gets a percentage of the profits every time any of his work changed ownership with each upwardly appraised sell.</p>

<p>If that were the case, wouldn't he be shooting himself in the foot by reducing the appraised value in this manner? </p>

<p>I believe that Eggleston's art stands on its own and is very rich on artistic value and enrichment for many people. But the more copies that are made, the less people are willing to pay for his art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If that were the case, wouldn't he be shooting himself in the foot by reducing the appraised value in this manner?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>His work would have to be sold in order for him to get the percentage. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just curious, wondering if Eggleston gets a percentage of the profits every time any of his work changed ownership with each upwardly appraised sell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why on earth would the artist receive royalties from the sale of an item he no longer owns? The art market has never worked like that. Authors don't get royalties from used book stores, either, and there's no reason at all that they should.</p>

<p>Oops, that is how it works in my country, Craig. Maybe it is not like that in the US. Every time an artwork is sold, the artist gets a percentage of the selling price in my country. I forgot it could be different in the US.</p>

>>> Why on earth would the artist receive royalties from the sale of an item he no longer owns? The art market has never worked like that.

 

But it has in many countries. California, for example, is one state in the US that allows for such royalties under certain conditions.

<p>Okay, having read up a little on the subject online, this appears to be the history of the idea:</p>

<p>France, after the First World War, instituted the "<em>droit de suite</em>", or "resale right", which provides for a fee to be paid to the artist or the artist's heirs when a work is resold (only when the artist was a French national, and generally only when the sale involved a professional art gallery or auction house, not when a work was traded privately). The EU Resale Rights Directive of 2001 established <em>droit de suite</em> in a uniform fashion for all EU member nations (though it is controversial in the UK). In the USA, only the state of California has a similar law, the 1976 Resale Royalty Act (which applies to sales in California or by California residents, without regard to the artist's nationality or residency), which is considered unconstitutional by some legal scholars, although it has not been overturned (yet).</p>

<p>Since Eggleston is an American, EU <em>droit de suite</em> does not apply to him as far as I can tell, and only sales in California or involving California residents would apply to his work. In any case, the second-sale royalty is pretty small (5% in California, 4% or less in EU depending on the selling price -- the rate goes down as the price goes up), so Eggleston probably stands to make more from a new edition of his work than he would ever get from royalties.</p>

<p>Selling editions by size is nothing new or unusual. I expect the Eggleston Trust to win this one. If they lose it, a hail of lawsuits will follow against hundreds of other photographers and artists who have sold prints of their works. Eggleston print prices are not going down anytime soon. In fact, I would predict that in constant dollars, they will appreciate by at least 1.7X and maybe 3X within five years. And he doesn't need the money. He was well off decades ago.</p>

<p>Tim, as others have pointed out, the royalty thing is common in other countries. </p>