Thanks for your kind words, Gluck.
Unfortunately at this time, I do not offer reproductions of my work. On my Facebook page, I actually wrote a note a few weeks back about why I don't do so, which I think kinda explains it pretty well. I've copied and pasted it below. Hopefully it clears things up!
Graig
-----------
Under normal circumstances, when an artist has a painting that he/she wants to share with a wider audience, there's the option of producing prints in order to do so. The word 'prints' can refer to anything from an Internet-saved image printed out from a home computer to high-quality archival giclées made in expensive print houses that are the standard in the fine art world. There are thousands upon thousands of artists who offer up any number of those services to those who follow their work.Really, it's a practice that ends up being a win-win for both parties. Fans are not only able to own a version of an original piece that has already been sold to another client, but additionally, they're able to build a collection based on their own individual budgets. For the artists, they're able to find their work in the homes and collections of more people, thereby obtaining a larger following. Also, those prints supplement an income on work that they've already done.
All in all, it sounds pretty easy. However, the route for doing reproductions of my work is unfortunately not so simple.
When I do an original painting of Babe Ruth and am lucky enough to sell it, there's not much to consider in terms of legal ramifications. However, if I took the same exact painting, made reproductions of it and began to offer them for sale, it ends up being a whole new ballgame. The reason being that I am no longer selling a one-of-a-kind original work, but am now using my painting--and everything depicted therein--for commercial purposes. And once something like that is being used for commercial purposes, technically there are a lot of rules to follow.
Babe Ruth, while no longer around, is an intellectual property. The pinstripes and interlocking “NY" on his hat are intellectual properties. The advertisement for Coca-Cola in the background of the painting is an intellectual property. The photograph that the painting is based on is an intellectual property. Major League Baseball is an intellectual property. Those responsible for the care-taking of each individual “brand”needs to be compensated before allowing me to make money for myself. When it was just an original painting, although a recognizable person and entity were still being pictured, the work of art itself is considered to be what the artist is making money off of. He/she is then protected under his First Amendment rights. However, if I started making money off of reproductions, and say, the estate of Babe Ruth wasn't getting a piece of the pie, then I would be violating the rights of their client, and I could easily be sued. It just so happens that the people who represent Babe Ruth charge quite a lot for their licenses. As does MLB. And the MLBPA. And Getty.In other words, a LOT of money has to go into it before I'm able to really put myself out there like that.
So in the end, I'm looking for the right opportunity. One that's beneficial to me, as well as whomever it is who entrusts me with their intellectual property. When I do find that opportunity, I assure you, you'll all be the first people to know!
Graig
|