2nd Printing of Posters

[kennyg]

What does everyone think of reprinting posters? Assuming that the posters were commisioned (by either the promoters or band)to start with, I would think there may be not only a problem with copyrights and royalties (like the bands on the poster), but also ethics. To me when reprinting begins...integrity ends.

[Jermaine]

Reprinting a poster Ive already done? I dont do it.
It completely screws everyone who hustled to buy the original.
That argument that a 2nd printing could be done to service the well-meaning fans that missed out on the first printing...that doesn't wash with me. Id prefer to have those people take that energy and MAKE SURE they pick up on my FOLLOWING prints. Half of this is what you actually do...the other half is the aura you create around your work.

[JGex]

I agree with Jermaine....

[jcooper]

i second that........

[robschwager]

third...

[philaarts.com]

i agree too..

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: philaarts.com on 2002-02-08 141 ]</font>

[kennyg]

I was hoping some of those people that do the second prints (and in other threads talk about integrity and the evils of working for the man) could shed a little light on how their logic gets them from point a to point b. Whenever I see "authorized reprint", "second printing" etc for the most part I assume the original poster artist gave their permission. I could be wrong but I don’t think the original performing artists or the promoters of the show were contacted for their “authorization”. Yes, there are exceptions where a reprint may be “legal” , but those are few are far between. Over the last few years I’ve talked with artists who firmly believe this type of irresponsible practice will eventually lead to the destruction of the art form.

Dave, sorry to see you edited your remarks. I think anyone that has been around for a bit knows of some of the improprieties that go on in this business. I would have a hard time justifying supporting those people even if I made money. Over the long run it is just not good for the art form.

[Steve H]

i agree with jermaine fully that once a poster has sold out then if you havent got one then its tough,there is on the other hand, a lot of poster collectors who like to get hold of the old stuff from the 60s for instance,and if like me,they werent even born in the 60s they'd have a lot of trouble gettin hold of the work they're lookin for at an affordable price.this is why reprinting posters is the only way this can happen,i dont see anything wrong with that,as long as its okay by the artist.

[kennyg]

Harry,
I can appreciate your sentiments but there are other people that have rights aside from the poster artist (ie the bands). Back in the 60's a lot of things were different. Now there are people that hold copyrights to many of the bands names and get quite upset when they see it used without authorization. Many bands today have management groups that can make it really tough doing an authorized print and have no sense of humor when it sees someone using the bands name without authorization. If everyones rights are taken into consideration, print the hell out of them. But I still think it weakens the art form.

[Hampton]

What do you guys think of a poster that was originaly ONLY printed for the promoter run(50-100 copies)and never offered to the public? No signed and numbered limited edition, I only got a handfull for myself back in the beginning. I'm thinking about "reprinting" a couple of my old posters that nobody was able to buy.