Important Limited Edition Print Decision
What if you want to create subsequent editions of work you printed previously as “Limited Edition”? U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts ruled on March 28 that you may proceed if the process you use is different from what you used to create the original edition.
Judge Batts’ ruling dismissed Jonathan Sobel’s case against renowned photographer, William Eggleston, who printed poster-sized images of work he shot in the Mississippi more than 30 years ago and subsequently printed in “limited editions” to great acclaim, with at least one becoming iconic.
When Eggleston’s new 36 poster-sized digital prints went on sale at Christie’s, they sold for enormous sums. For instance, his “subsequent edition”, five-foot “Tricycle” digital print fetched a record $578,500. Some years earlier, plaintiff Sobel reportedly paid $250,000 for Eggleston’s 17-inch dye-transfer print of the same image. Based on the argument that scarcity protects value, Sobel was understandably upset.
Yet Judge Batts ruled:
“Eggleston could be held liable only if he created new editions of the limited-edition works in Sobel’s collection using the same dye-transfer process he used for the originals — a move that would directly deflate their value. In this case, however, Eggleston was using a new digital process to produce what she deemed a new body of work.” Source: ArtInfo.com
Although good news for artists, especially William Eggleston, the decision clearly opens the door for many future “edgy” cases that are sure to appear.
You can compare the “look” of the two images here, but keep in mind the huge difference in size between the two.
Sources used in this article: