i would like to weigh in on this topic as it crosses many categories, not only photography. I believe honesty is the best policy and it should be reflected both ways, in the jurying: quaifications and in the artists booth: by price and format (like the difference between a print and an original.) If the show does not allow prints or restricts the proportion of prints to originals then those are the rules. If something has been licensed to someone else I would expect to pay a percentage of an original and certainly not more than another licensed piece of art. The artist who finds himself in the position of selling something someone finds in target will be losing that future sale if he misrepresents it The art world has many levels of prints from famous artists like picasso, miro, etc. you can find it on a postcard, a lithograph or even a poster. The prices are reflective of the medium. It doesn't make the art any less good. I would be happy to own a litho or painting version of the dove of peace by picasso. The fact that it has been reproduced does not lessen its value but probably the opposite.
Comments
My two cents. If someone wants my "original" photograph (image), and to uphold the letter of the law, then I would need to give them my negative/slide or now my digital sensor. Every print - technically - is a reprint. If someone only prints one and sells it for the moon, great for that person. Making multiple prints doesn't degrade the quality of each print I make. And, I'm not naive to believe that my work will be worth more in a thousand years than what someone paid today.
I just don't pay much attention to this issue as this is the first time I've ever weighed in on any forum.
Thanks, Laurie, for posting the discussion.