Posted by Pat Warfield on December 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Hi, I always have my digital name on reprints in an area in either the lower left or lower right. I want it to be far enough from bottom so it won't be covered by matts or frame. I usually leave a white border all around the print - a little wider at the bottom. I can include a title & also sign it personally in the white area if requested.
I also do custom picture framing and often frame art prints. Almost all originals & reproductions have the artist's name within the print area. If there are important titles or signatures in the borders, then I cut a notched matt to include in the framed piece.
Since photographs are always reproductions of the original they should have the creators' name visible. Look at any oil painting or watercolor, they will have the artist's name. Artists, whether painters, printers or photographers deserve to have their name noticed for reputation & for copyrights. If you created it, put you name on it!!!
Pat
Posted by Ed Cordes on December 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM
I agree. However, I have had a client or two request I sign the mat rather than the image itself. I have complied with their wishes.
Posted by Susie Hopkins on December 17, 2007 at 8:57 AM
I sign any images I sell... I tell people if they want it unsigned it will cost them more... Much more! I also label the back with the image title/# and copyright with a transparent label.. Impossible to remove. Definitely do as an artist would do..
Posted by Pat Warfield on December 17, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Susie & Ed, thanks for your input, but I still maintain that the photographer has the right to have his/her name on the face of the print. A new photographer (I don't mean you) may not have confidence in dealing with customers. Probably thrilled that someone likes their work or to actually sell something. But actually, the customer doesn't have the right to dictate to the photographer. In fact the photographer shouldn't even ask the buyer's preference unless it is used in advertising.
Create an attractive logo design that will actually enhance the print. Then also offer to sign in the margins or on a matt. This additional signature the customer could choose or reject.
If you sign the mat only, the mat can be removed if someone wants to copy the photo or use it commercially without your consent. Of course a fairly good tech with Photoshop can remove a digital image too.
If you adhere a sticker on the back it still doesn't protect the image, a sticker will cause problems if the photo is dry mounted prior to framing, the sticker will show on the front as a raised rectangle. Back to framing issues - art prints produced on paper stock can be hinged at the top so they will remain unchanged. But due to the nature of resin coated photo materials they should be dry mounted. If photos are hinged at the top or tacked at the corners, the center will tend to bag or sag. Perhaps some of the archival inkjet papers will not stretch.
In closing, a few times I have received calls from photo labs about a customer wanting to get copies made from my prints which had my logo on the face. I would decline because the customer could have come directly to me. Most often the abusers were corporations who wanted a little extra milage out of their investment. Many people just do not consider using someone's photos without permission a crime. Fortunately almost all labs now will not copy a photo that looks like a professional print.
My preferred method is to use an archival board to which the print is dry-mounted and then use a window mat cut larger than the print. I then sign on the mount. Also, I do not write any kind of 'title' or 'date' on the mount. I provide the title and the date the original transparency was made on a document that I include with each print.
I agree that nothing should be attached to or written on the back side of a print, since it will likely damage the print over time, or (as in the case of a label) be visible as a 'bump' when the print is mounted.
I do include a written document regarding the terms of use of my work, along with hints about proper care of the print. I do not give location, camera, or processing data.
Pat, I am glad your lab called you about making copies of a print. The customer should come directly to you for a print (and pay for it) as you say. If I had a lab do a print, and they sold copies (or even gave them away) without my consent, I'd be talking to a lawyer! A lab that makes an unauthorized copy or print of any photograph (except their own) is in violation of intellectual property rights (and copy-rights) law and would likely find themselves in a big pickle!
Kind Regards,
-PB
Posted by Anil Rao on December 17, 2007 at 7:52 PM
> Since photographs are always reproductions of the original...
I don't believe the above statement holds true in all cases (as implied by the use of the word "always"). I consider my prints to be the "originals". They are not reproductions. The negative/slide or the digital file from which my prints are produced do not represent the completed piece of work and as such cannot be more original than the final print(s).
As I understand the law, your original film or digitally captured file is the "original" work and holds the original copyright. Subsequent final prints, and other presentations are "derivative" works to which you hold the intellectual and copy rights. Derivative works are not reproductions.
An example of a 'reproduction' would be: I make a single 'final' print (a derivative work). I then make ten identical prints. These ten identical prints are reproductions.
This is how I have come to understand this stuff. Since lawyers invented these definitions and laws, no wonder it's confusing!
-PB
Posted by Pat Warfield on December 17, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Preston, thank you for your ideas about signing photographs in margins after drymounting & matting. This way the photographer gets to insure the quality and longevity of the presentation.
Anil, I should 'never' say 'always' because as you say there can be processing or enhancing differences that may purposely make a particular 'print' an original. However, in legal terms an unaltered neg or slide or digital file is an 'original'. In reference to 'your original prints', could you reproduce identical copies from a file? In the complex digital world where we can alter, composite & perform any number of artsy steps, a better term for this kind of 'original' would be a Master File.
But since the subject was about placing a signature or logo on our 'completed work', whatever we produce whether it be termed original or some sort of composite or variation it is ours to identify as we choose & it is wise to do so.
Pat, you are welcome. You are right on when you say,"...original or some sort of composite or variation it is ours to identify as we choose & it is wise to do so.", not only to protect our rights, but also as a mark of our professionalism.
Best Regards,
-PB
Posted by Anil Rao on December 18, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Pat: You had asked - can I produce identical prints from my master file? The answer is yes. The way I see it, there is the original negative/slide, the master file and then multiple original prints.
Here is a short description on original prints that I found during a recent web search. It may be a little dated, but in my opinion it is quite applicable to photographic prints too.
An original print is a work of art created by hand and printed by hand, either by the artist or by a professional assistant (often called an artisan), from a plate, block, stone, or stencil that has been hand created by the artist for the sole purpose of producing the desired image. The plates or stencils it is printed from bear no resemblance to the finished work of art, which means it is not a copy or a reproduction of anything. In fact, in all print media but two, the image on the matrix (what the print is produced from) is mirror image or backwards from what the finished work will be. The image reverses in the printing process so the artist has to think and draw backwards. Each print produced is technically a unique work although produced as a signed and numbered multiple. The technical term for this is monoprint. The original print is usually produced as a limited number of impressions, another word for print. The term for this group of prints is the edition. Although there are many of the same image in an edition, each print is an individual part of the whole, the whole being the edition. An original print is actually one piece of a multiple original work of art.
If I scanned one of my original prints and then produced additonal prints using this scan, I'd consider the resulting prints to be reproductions. This is what painters do. They photograph or scan an original painting then make prints that are indeed reproductions.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on December 18, 2007 at 6:05 AM
Let me play devil's advocate here. Though I am not one of them, I know a few professionals that no longer sign or apply logos to their prints. Their reasoning is that people with flat-bed scanners will copy them, logo and all, and print them or otherwise use them, with the photographer having no control over how the image is rendered. In short, they don't want a crappy photo in circulation with their name or logo on it.
We just did Santa pictures at a local elementary school and printed directly from a Sony Snap Lab printer. The images were obviously professionally done, but having had the printer for only two days prior, I hadn't set up to splash the company logo on the prints yet. Even so I've gotten several calls from Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS asking for a copyright release so that they could scan and reproduce the images.
This is a bit off topic, but if you ever shoot photo-whore events, the Snap Art printer is the way to go. It prints very high quality 4X6 or 5X7 prints in under 17 seconds and for about $0.20 each.
Discussion
10 repliesI also do custom picture framing and often frame art prints. Almost all originals & reproductions have the artist's name within the print area. If there are important titles or signatures in the borders, then I cut a notched matt to include in the framed piece.
Since photographs are always reproductions of the original they should have the creators' name visible. Look at any oil painting or watercolor, they will have the artist's name. Artists, whether painters, printers or photographers deserve to have their name noticed for reputation & for copyrights. If you created it, put you name on it!!!
Pat
Create an attractive logo design that will actually enhance the print. Then also offer to sign in the margins or on a matt. This additional signature the customer could choose or reject.
If you sign the mat only, the mat can be removed if someone wants to copy the photo or use it commercially without your consent. Of course a fairly good tech with Photoshop can remove a digital image too.
If you adhere a sticker on the back it still doesn't protect the image, a sticker will cause problems if the photo is dry mounted prior to framing, the sticker will show on the front as a raised rectangle. Back to framing issues - art prints produced on paper stock can be hinged at the top so they will remain unchanged. But due to the nature of resin coated photo materials they should be dry mounted. If photos are hinged at the top or tacked at the corners, the center will tend to bag or sag. Perhaps some of the archival inkjet papers will not stretch.
In closing, a few times I have received calls from photo labs about a customer wanting to get copies made from my prints which had my logo on the face. I would decline because the customer could have come directly to me. Most often the abusers were corporations who wanted a little extra milage out of their investment. Many people just do not consider using someone's photos without permission a crime. Fortunately almost all labs now will not copy a photo that looks like a professional print.
Personally, I think that any signature (digital or archival ink) on the actual surface of the image downgrades and distracts from the image. I will use an archival ink on the white border of the paper the image is printed upon, though, and insist that the customer have the image mounted or matted so that my signature is visible. I do not use the © symbol on any print because legally, my handwritten signature is valid as a mark of my intellectual property, and the sybol looks tacky, in my opinion.
My preferred method is to use an archival board to which the print is dry-mounted and then use a window mat cut larger than the print. I then sign on the mount. Also, I do not write any kind of 'title' or 'date' on the mount. I provide the title and the date the original transparency was made on a document that I include with each print.
I agree that nothing should be attached to or written on the back side of a print, since it will likely damage the print over time, or (as in the case of a label) be visible as a 'bump' when the print is mounted.
I do include a written document regarding the terms of use of my work, along with hints about proper care of the print. I do not give location, camera, or processing data.
Pat, I am glad your lab called you about making copies of a print. The customer should come directly to you for a print (and pay for it) as you say. If I had a lab do a print, and they sold copies (or even gave them away) without my consent, I'd be talking to a lawyer! A lab that makes an unauthorized copy or print of any photograph (except their own) is in violation of intellectual property rights (and copy-rights) law and would likely find themselves in a big pickle!
Kind Regards,
-PB
I don't believe the above statement holds true in all cases (as implied by the use of the word "always"). I consider my prints to be the "originals". They are not reproductions. The negative/slide or the digital file from which my prints are produced do not represent the completed piece of work and as such cannot be more original than the final print(s).
An example of a 'reproduction' would be: I make a single 'final' print (a derivative work). I then make ten identical prints. These ten identical prints are reproductions.
This is how I have come to understand this stuff. Since lawyers invented these definitions and laws, no wonder it's confusing!
-PB
Anil, I should 'never' say 'always' because as you say there can be processing or enhancing differences that may purposely make a particular 'print' an original. However, in legal terms an unaltered neg or slide or digital file is an 'original'. In reference to 'your original prints', could you reproduce identical copies from a file? In the complex digital world where we can alter, composite & perform any number of artsy steps, a better term for this kind of 'original' would be a Master File.
But since the subject was about placing a signature or logo on our 'completed work', whatever we produce whether it be termed original or some sort of composite or variation it is ours to identify as we choose & it is wise to do so.
Pat Warfield
Oklahoma
Best Regards,
-PB
Here is a short description on original prints that I found during a recent web search. It may be a little dated, but in my opinion it is quite applicable to photographic prints too.
An original print is a work of art created by hand and printed by hand, either by the artist or by a professional assistant (often called an artisan), from a plate, block, stone, or stencil that has been hand created by the artist for the sole purpose of producing the desired image. The plates or stencils it is printed from bear no resemblance to the finished work of art, which means it is not a copy or a reproduction of anything. In fact, in all print media but two, the image on the matrix (what the print is produced from) is mirror image or backwards from what the finished work will be. The image reverses in the printing process so the artist has to think and draw backwards. Each print produced is technically a unique work although produced as a signed and numbered multiple. The technical term for this is monoprint. The original print is usually produced as a limited number of impressions, another word for print. The term for this group of prints is the edition. Although there are many of the same image in an edition, each print is an individual part of the whole, the whole being the edition. An original print is actually one piece of a multiple original work of art.
If I scanned one of my original prints and then produced additonal prints using this scan, I'd consider the resulting prints to be reproductions. This is what painters do. They photograph or scan an original painting then make prints that are indeed reproductions.
We just did Santa pictures at a local elementary school and printed directly from a Sony Snap Lab printer. The images were obviously professionally done, but having had the printer for only two days prior, I hadn't set up to splash the company logo on the prints yet. Even so I've gotten several calls from Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS asking for a copyright release so that they could scan and reproduce the images.
This is a bit off topic, but if you ever shoot photo-whore events, the Snap Art printer is the way to go. It prints very high quality 4X6 or 5X7 prints in under 17 seconds and for about $0.20 each.