I go to a lot of science fiction conventions, and because of this I have been to a lot of art shows. Leaving aside the topic of overpriced amateur art for another time, I have noticed that the big money is in limited run prints. Is there any regulation when it comes to how limited a run really is? Can an artist just reuse a print number and continue cashing in? If I have print #17 of 100, then I notice at another convention or art show that print #17 of 100 of the same art is for sale there, what legal recourse do I have?
Sound like fraud to me. Not sure it it’s criminal, but you’d certainly have a lawsuit (but you’d need an expert to figure out what your damages were)
Unfortunately for the most part tens of dollars to the low hundreds of dollars.
Yeah, I suppose if it was a widespread practice, it could perhaps be viable as a class action. For whatever it’s worth, my wife and I have a modest art collection and go to a lot of galleries. The limited number thing is taken very seriously, and it would be a very sleezy outfit that did what you described.
I’d sooner bet they run off, say, 100 prints numbered 1 to 100. If those sell out they run off another hundred, numbered 1 to 100 which, if asked, are numbered of this printing.
Is that sleazy? Yep.
Illegal? I know I don’t know for sure but I’m skeptical it’s actionable civilly or criminally.
AFAI, it works a bit like publishing runs for books – each run should be a separate edition, and each edition should be labeled in an identifiable way. But my experience is mostly in making relief prints.
I have no idea what legal recourse you have about a fraudulent limited edition, but I would definitely share that around and identify the artist if it were me. It’s disreputable.
If it says x of 100 it is clearly stating it’s a limited edition, and it’s limited to 100 items. If they make 200 items, that’s deceptive and theoretically actionable. The economics might not make sense, but it’s fraudulent
Here’s a blog post that describes how it is supposed to work.
The only way this could possibly be legit would be, say, after a 2000 edition of 100, another edition of 100 conspicuously marked 2026 re-edition. Especially if the process or material was changed.
I’d consider that sleazy and subject to all kinds of confusion, but it might pass legal muster. Anything less than should be shouted throughout the fan world and get them banned from art shows.
I just saw @Frilly_Heck’s link. It has a possible explanation.
Artist’s proofs are additional prints that exist outside the main limited edition. These are usually retained by the artist and are labeled as AP. Although not part of the numbered edition, these proofs are often highly sought after by collectors because of their unique status and the insight they offer into the artist’s process.
Printer’s proofs are prints set aside for the printer who assisted with the production of the edition. Labeled as PP, these prints serve as a token of gratitude and a professional courtesy for their role in creating the edition.
In my experience, those can, if not usually, be numbered themselves. The AP or PP is sometimes hard to notice, although the higher price is itself a giveaway.
Since the OP is asking about a speculative event, more detail would be needed to determine whether a particular example fell into acceptable guidelines.
This Wikipedia article has a warning that additional citations are needed, and it isn’t clear just how universal the laws are, but here’s the relevant verbiage:
(My bolding regarding the penalties.)
“…it was not until 1986 that more comprehensive provisions, still in place today, were enacted with the passage of the “Georgia Print Law”. That law became the template for statutes subsequently enacted by other states.The Georgia Print Law written by (former) State Representative Chesley V. Morton, became effective July 1, 1986. The law requires art dealers, artists, or auctioneers to supply information to prospective purchasers about the nature of the print, the number of prints and editions (including HC editions) produced, and the involvement (if any) of the artist in the creation of the print.
The penalty for violation of the law ranges from simple reimbursement to treble damages, in the case of a willful violation. Those found to be in violation of the law are also liable for court costs, expenses, and attorney fees. The law applies to works of art valued at more than $100.00 (not including frame).”
That link is very informative, thank you.
Another option would be to change the artwork slightly, and then to print off another 100 of the “new” artwork. This is incredibly easy, for digital artwork (which a lot of reproducible artwork is, these days).
The new artwork would have to have a different name, even if it’s only Untitled 2. Otherwise, I’d say it would be fraud.
It’s not hard to do in most forms of physical printing, either. Draw on the stone and re-etch that spot, cut some more of your wood block, work the plate a little more, or mask the final screen a little bit more.
Ehhh, not really. It would just have to be clearly described as a variant of the old print, or you can even just declare it part of a second edition or print run. Even then, variation from the original will go a long way. You can name every one of your works in your lifetime “Untitled 1000” if you like. No one can sue you for that. Though, most people will vary the name. That’s easy enough, and the name doesn’t always have a particular meaning to the work of art.
For example, this print from Brian Chippendale is just described as the second printing. It’s different from the original, so an appraiser could tell what edition it was by that if they couldn’t tell from the original run being an unknown number, and I assume un-numbered as a result. The second printing probably drops the value of the original on the second hand market. But since it is easily differentiated from the original, I doubt that it dropped the value much.
I’ve taken several fine arts printmaking courses in college, and my wife’s fine arts degree was concentrated on print making. We own a combo litho/intaglio press. The ins and outs of numbering and editions was discussed in class to make what you can and can’t do pretty clear.
Heck, there’s not really anything requiring you to number your prints. The only reason that is there so the buyer has some sort of idea how many were printed. But if you were shifty, you could print an edition of 10 and then do 1000 artist’s proofs, and then sell them all. Even if you can’t be sued for it, word would travel fast, and you’d be selling $10 prints instead of $100-$1000 prints.
There may be a technical distinction between that and a “different name” but to the average buyer that would be the equivalent. What I was suggesting is that the name be sufficiently informative to distinguish between the original and later version. Not doing so may not trigger the legal status of fraud, but the common language meaning of fraud would come into play.
I see this in the book world. A book may go into ten printings but still be technically a first edition. Collectors, however, usually make a distinction between first edition first printing and first edition later edition. Selling the latter when priced as the former is not fraudulent, but it should serve as a reason to return a book. All the more so when a limited edition - normally not something that would ever even have later versions - is no longer a limited edition.
The important part is that one doesn’t sell it while implying it is part of the original run of prints. You can even buy/sell re-strikes of Rembrandt’s prints done long after he is dead (some new ones are even being sold now), but the seller needs to make it clear that they are re-strikes. If they sold it as a print made during his lifetime, the buyer would probably have grounds to sue.
In the case of the OP, where there appear to be two identically numbered editions of the same run, it would depend on how the work was being sold. If it clearly states it’s a re-strike or from a different run, I don’t think there’s much they could do. Given that artists can mildly (or even severely) alter the print and sell it as a new edition, I doubt there’d be much incentive to try to deceive the buyer.
How is digital artwork “limited”? I was sure this thread was about seriliths or some other printmaking technique that requires rare skill and months to accomplish (and, maybe, not so easy to “update”, with dozens of color separations, etc.). Though, I suppose you could still end up running off 1000 instead of 100.
If you make a limited edition digital print run, you are supposed to destroy the digital image afterwards. Obviously that seem hard to enforce, but it is the expectation.
Of course, one could keep a master digital file, modify it slightly, save that version as a digital master to base a limited edition on, and then destroy it while retaining the first master, and repeat that process. As long as you labeled everything clearly you’d be in the clear, I think.
Interesting. Destroying digital files may be hard to enforce, by the way, but people do it all the time. Just fail to back them up 
Can’t you just keep it and not print any more?
And after all, any of the buyers could just scan it in and make more that way. Yes, there’d be some degradation, but it could be extremely difficult to detect.