[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Unique Books?



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.

Buck Jeppson


On Monday, February 01, 1999 5:32 AM, Jack Ginsberg
[SMTP:jackg@CJPETROW.CO.ZA] wrote:
> I would like to have the views of the list on the question of limitation
on
> artists' books which are produced in a single copy (unique).
>
> I have noticed that many artists make two copies of a book (with that
fact
> reflected in the colophon) so as to be able to keep one copy for
themselves.
> 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
original
> of which has been sold as unique?  In such cases some artists specify
that a
> book is unique or mark the book "1/1" in the colophon; some remain
silent.
>
> If such a book is successful and the artist is later asked to make
another,
> 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
the
> second make a difference?
>
> Jack M. Ginsberg
> jackg@cjpetrow.co.za
>
>


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]