What does "Limited Edition Print" actually mean?

[Edwin Barkdoll]

I've come across photographers' sites that offer limited edition prints of a particular image (e.g. acrylic) while offering the same print on different medium (say, metal).

It seems that "limited edition" then simply refers to the medium and not the image. Or is "limited edition" really just a slippery, toothless term?

What was the effect on the term by the lawsuit by a collector against Eggleston that was thrown out by the courts in 2013-ish? https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/publishing/232746/artist-can-sell-digital-reprints-of-iconic-limited-edition-photographs-judge-says

[ed_farmer]

The simple truth is that it only means what the creator decides that it means.  An "Edition of 100", may mean that that capture will only be used to produce 100 prints for sale.  But, it may also mean that only 100 16x20 prints will be produced but it may show up in other sizes or posters.  Or, that more may be made with other manipulation.  Or that more identical images may be produced at a different time . . . And on and on . . . 

[Niels - NHSN]

It is just a marketing tool with little to no meaning.

The linked lawsuit is not a good example of a boarderline case. The collector should obviously have known better but he most likely filed the lawsuit for other reasons.

 

[JDMvW]

20 hours ago, Edwin Barkdoll said:

is "limited edition" really just a slippery, toothless term?

Actually, pretty much.

It should refer to something which is only issued in strictly controlled numbers, 2/250 or whatever

[AJG]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that some states in the US do have laws concerning this.  Saying that an edition is limited is something of an implied contract and I suspect that as the selling price goes up the importance of the specifications of a limited edition probably increase as well. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by AJG

[SCL]

I've periodically purchased restrikes of etchings and engravings where the original is worth thousands of dollars, the restrike worth significantly less. The restrikes were labelled as such and were printed on different papers than the originals. Did their sale diminish the value of the originals....no. As far as photographs go, I think the NY decision was a fair one to all parties, given the subsequent sale of the photograph/s was different in size and on different media. I've always assumed the term "limited edition" didn't preclude subsequent sale of an image, merely that it would not purport to be a part of the original, numbered, limited edition. I'm sure laws differ in other states and countries.

[Edwin Barkdoll]

5 hours ago, ed_farmer said:

The simple truth is that it only means what the creator decides that it means.  An "Edition of 100", may mean that that capture will only be used to produce 100 prints for sale.  But, it may also mean that only 100 16x20 prints will be produced but it may show up in other sizes or posters.  Or, that more may be made with other manipulation.  Or that more identical images may be produced at a different time . . . And on and on . . . 

 

Reminds me of Jorge Luis Borges's The Library of Babel - change a single punctuation mark in a book and you have a new book.

[Ricochetrider]

OK I just had this convo a couple days ago with a friend who suggested I could selI a limited edition of a photo in one size, then reissue the same shot in another size and it would be perfectly ethical to do so. But isn't it up to us, as "Artists" or at least owners/sellers of an image to decide to honor such a thing as limited editions of our work? IMO to sell a run of "limited" editions then to reissue it elsewhere could be seen as disingenuous. Law or no law, where and how do we draw the line at what's "ethical" or otherwise? 

[tsphotos]

https://www.klaustiedge.com/whats-the-difference-between-limited-edition-and-open-edition-prints/#:~:text=Limited edition prints are usually,that can be repeatedly reproduced.

  

[Charles_Webster]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:32 PM, Edwin Barkdoll said:

 

Reminds me of Jorge Luis Borges's The Library of Babel - change a single punctuation mark in a book and you have a new book.

Not under US copyright law. Changing only a little of a work is considered creating a derivative, which is not a new copyrightable work.

 

[nikallaw12]

I would make sure to really differentiate what makes a limited edition print more special than an open edition print of the same size. Limited Edition, at a minimum, should be signed and numbered, but some artists choose to do them on fancier paper or have something that makes them different from the open edition ones.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:37 AM, JDMvW said:

Actually, pretty much.

It should refer to something which is only issued in strictly controlled numbers, 2/250 or whatever

That's my understanding as well. But photographers and others started hedging Maybe they would say the first set was fiber and the second inkjet,  I believe the practice of limiting them was to protect their value in the art market. Collectors wanted limited numbers to ensure scarcity etc.  Silly rabbits.

[AlanKlein]

I guess the trick is to pick a number a little higher than you'll ever sell. 

[nikallaw12]

I've periodically purchased restrikes of etchings and engravings where the original is worth thousands of dollars, the restrike worth significantly less. The restrikes were labelled as such and were printed on different papers than the originals. routerlogin

watch IPL
 

[glen_h]

On 1/1/2023 at 2:04 PM, Charles_Webster said:

Not under US copyright law. Changing only a little of a work is considered creating a derivative, which is not a new copyrightable work.

 

It often works in patent law, though.

For chemical patents, a tiny change usually creates a new molecule, new chemical, and new patent.

Famously used for drugs when the patent is about to expire. 

(That works if the patent owner can convince people that the new one is better, and any

generic copies are worse.)