[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unique Books?
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Unique Books?
- From: Buckley Jeppson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:47:24 -0500
- Message-Id: <199902020407.UAA22752@palimpsest.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Unique=one. No exceptions
If an artist makes a second copy for himself or herself, it should be
marked "Artist's Copy."
A customer or gallery that buys something sold as "unique" expects this. If
a second copy is discovered under any circumstances, they are justified
seeking legal redress. I remember reading of a similar situation where a
printmaker did a limited edition of 100 prints numbered 1/100 etc. and a
few years later another 1/100 surfaced on the opposite coast and
another1/100 in London. The art world is too small for that. I suspect the
artist is now sweeping floors somewhere and deservedly so.
On Monday, February 01, 1999 5:32 AM, Jack Ginsberg
> I would like to have the views of the list on the question of limitation
> artists' books which are produced in a single copy (unique).
> I have noticed that many artists make two copies of a book (with that
> reflected in the colophon) so as to be able to keep one copy for
> Nothing wrong with that if noted in the colophon ("1/2").
> But what about the morality of making a second copy of a book, the
> of which has been sold as unique? In such cases some artists specify
> book is unique or mark the book "1/1" in the colophon; some remain
> If such a book is successful and the artist is later asked to make
> is this ethical?
> Does it make a difference if the colophon is silent as to the number of
> copies made but the original book is ostensibly unique?
> Does the time lapsed between the making of the first ("unique") copy and
> second make a difference?
> Jack M. Ginsberg