3kaol
New Member
Posts • 81
Likes • 24
January 2012
|
New hutch roller girl, by 3kaol on Mar 18, 2014 21:33:37 GMT 1, New green roller girl for those who are interested, available from
hutchart.bigcartel.com/products
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 21:34:21 GMT 1,
He keeps churning them out :-)
He keeps churning them out :-) |
|
Sacked...
Full Member
Posts • 7,978
Likes • 1,338
October 2007
|
New hutch roller girl, by Sacked... on Mar 18, 2014 21:52:21 GMT 1, Dead horse flog.
Dead horse flog.
|
|
|
|
New hutch roller girl, by Happy Shopper on Mar 18, 2014 22:00:16 GMT 1, Have we gone back in time? What year is this?
Have we gone back in time? What year is this?
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 22:41:49 GMT 1, She still doesn't look old enough to roller skate.
She still doesn't look old enough to roller skate.
|
|
11
Junior Member
Posts • 4,841
Likes • 6,721
February 2011
|
New hutch roller girl, by 11 on Mar 19, 2014 0:03:15 GMT 1, Can't be right - This was the last edition of the Roller Girl image that Hutch was going to produce....sold out 3 years ago....
Can't be right - This was the last edition of the Roller Girl image that Hutch was going to produce....sold out 3 years ago.... |
|
|
|
|
|
New hutch roller girl, by Happy Shopper on Mar 19, 2014 9:23:07 GMT 1, I think that was Eelus.
I think that was Eelus.
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
Posts • 9,190
Likes • 8,545
May 2011
|
New hutch roller girl, by iamzero on Mar 19, 2014 11:37:43 GMT 1, I own a pink version of this and actually quite like the green and silver but can't help thinking its a little bit naughty to release it after chasing down my version for so long.
I own a pink version of this and actually quite like the green and silver but can't help thinking its a little bit naughty to release it after chasing down my version for so long.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 12:55:16 GMT 1, This is illegal. I know the following is US law. But there is the same type of thing in place in the UK. I just found this first.
Limited edition prints
Main article: Edition
Limited edition prints, also known as LE's, have been standard in printmaking from the nineteenth century onwards. A limit to the print run is crucial, as many traditional printmaking techniques can only produce a limited number of best quality impressions. This can be as few as ten or twenty for a technique like drypoint, but more commonly would be in the low hundreds - print runs of over a thousand are regarded as dubious by the serious art market for original prints, even though with many techniques there is no loss of quality.
Edition sizes higher than about 500 are likely to be of print reproductions of paintings, of much less value, though some modern techniques blur this traditional distinction. As in other fields, the use of the concept has become largely driven by marketing imperatives, and has been misused in parts of the market. In particular, lithographic, photogravure, rotogravure, and giclee reproductions of prints, derived from photographs of an original print, which are most unlikely to have any investment value, are often issued in limited editions implying that they will have such value. These need to be distinguished from the original artist's print, carefully produced directly from his work, and printed under the artist's supervision.
Consumer protection
In UK and New Zealand the Fine Art Trade Guild ensures the quality and verification of limited edition prints by employing a number of strictly administered regulations for all processes and aspects related to them.
In the United States limited editions are regulated under state consumer protections laws. California became the first state to regulate the sale of limited edition art prints with the "California Print Law" of 1971. The state of Illinois later expanded on the California statute. However, 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 perspective 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 that $100.00 (not including frame). Charitable organizations are specifically exempt from the provision of the law. The statute of limitations is one year after discovery, and, if discovery of the violation is not made within three years of the sale, then the purchaser’s remedies are extinguished.[1]
A limited edition is normally hand signed and numbered by the artist, typically in pencil, in the form (e.g.): 14/100. The first number is the number of the print itself. The second number is the number of overall prints the artist will print of that image. The lower the second number is, the more valuable and collectible the limited editions are likely to be, within whatever their price range is. A small number of "artists' proofs" may also be produced as well, signed and with "AP", "proof", etc. Prints that are given to someone or are for some reason unsuitable for sale are marked "H. C." or "H/C", meaning "hors de commerce", not for sale
This is illegal. I know the following is US law. But there is the same type of thing in place in the UK. I just found this first.
Limited edition prints
Main article: Edition
Limited edition prints, also known as LE's, have been standard in printmaking from the nineteenth century onwards. A limit to the print run is crucial, as many traditional printmaking techniques can only produce a limited number of best quality impressions. This can be as few as ten or twenty for a technique like drypoint, but more commonly would be in the low hundreds - print runs of over a thousand are regarded as dubious by the serious art market for original prints, even though with many techniques there is no loss of quality.
Edition sizes higher than about 500 are likely to be of print reproductions of paintings, of much less value, though some modern techniques blur this traditional distinction. As in other fields, the use of the concept has become largely driven by marketing imperatives, and has been misused in parts of the market. In particular, lithographic, photogravure, rotogravure, and giclee reproductions of prints, derived from photographs of an original print, which are most unlikely to have any investment value, are often issued in limited editions implying that they will have such value. These need to be distinguished from the original artist's print, carefully produced directly from his work, and printed under the artist's supervision.
Consumer protection
In UK and New Zealand the Fine Art Trade Guild ensures the quality and verification of limited edition prints by employing a number of strictly administered regulations for all processes and aspects related to them.
In the United States limited editions are regulated under state consumer protections laws. California became the first state to regulate the sale of limited edition art prints with the "California Print Law" of 1971. The state of Illinois later expanded on the California statute. However, 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 perspective 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 that $100.00 (not including frame). Charitable organizations are specifically exempt from the provision of the law. The statute of limitations is one year after discovery, and, if discovery of the violation is not made within three years of the sale, then the purchaser’s remedies are extinguished.[1]
A limited edition is normally hand signed and numbered by the artist, typically in pencil, in the form (e.g.): 14/100. The first number is the number of the print itself. The second number is the number of overall prints the artist will print of that image. The lower the second number is, the more valuable and collectible the limited editions are likely to be, within whatever their price range is. A small number of "artists' proofs" may also be produced as well, signed and with "AP", "proof", etc. Prints that are given to someone or are for some reason unsuitable for sale are marked "H. C." or "H/C", meaning "hors de commerce", not for sale
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 12:57:30 GMT 1, I've been told you are not allowed to do what Hutch has done. Changing the background colour is simply no excuse to re-release a print.
I've been told you are not allowed to do what Hutch has done. Changing the background colour is simply no excuse to re-release a print.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 13:39:28 GMT 1, Artist Grafter was also named by a guy in precious thread for similar behavior.
Artist Grafter was also named by a guy in precious thread for similar behavior.
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
Posts • 5,869
Likes • 5,480
September 2013
|
New hutch roller girl, by Poster Bob on Mar 19, 2014 13:41:41 GMT 1, I can't see anything there stating that it is illegal unless you're applying a Georgian law to UK sales.
This is illegal. I know the following is US law. But there is the same type of thing in place in the UK. I just found this first. Limited edition prints Main article: Edition Limited edition prints, also known as LE's, have been standard in printmaking from the nineteenth century onwards. A limit to the print run is crucial, as many traditional printmaking techniques can only produce a limited number of best quality impressions. This can be as few as ten or twenty for a technique like drypoint, but more commonly would be in the low hundreds - print runs of over a thousand are regarded as dubious by the serious art market for original prints, even though with many techniques there is no loss of quality. Edition sizes higher than about 500 are likely to be of print reproductions of paintings, of much less value, though some modern techniques blur this traditional distinction. As in other fields, the use of the concept has become largely driven by marketing imperatives, and has been misused in parts of the market. In particular, lithographic, photogravure, rotogravure, and giclee reproductions of prints, derived from photographs of an original print, which are most unlikely to have any investment value, are often issued in limited editions implying that they will have such value. These need to be distinguished from the original artist's print, carefully produced directly from his work, and printed under the artist's supervision. Consumer protection In UK and New Zealand the Fine Art Trade Guild ensures the quality and verification of limited edition prints by employing a number of strictly administered regulations for all processes and aspects related to them. In the United States limited editions are regulated under state consumer protections laws. California became the first state to regulate the sale of limited edition art prints with the "California Print Law" of 1971. The state of Illinois later expanded on the California statute. However, 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 perspective 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 that $100.00 (not including frame). Charitable organizations are specifically exempt from the provision of the law. The statute of limitations is one year after discovery, and, if discovery of the violation is not made within three years of the sale, then the purchaser’s remedies are extinguished.[1] A limited edition is normally hand signed and numbered by the artist, typically in pencil, in the form (e.g.): 14/100. The first number is the number of the print itself. The second number is the number of overall prints the artist will print of that image. The lower the second number is, the more valuable and collectible the limited editions are likely to be, within whatever their price range is. A small number of "artists' proofs" may also be produced as well, signed and with "AP", "proof", etc. Prints that are given to someone or are for some reason unsuitable for sale are marked "H. C." or "H/C", meaning "hors de commerce", not for sale
I can't see anything there stating that it is illegal unless you're applying a Georgian law to UK sales. This is illegal. I know the following is US law. But there is the same type of thing in place in the UK. I just found this first. Limited edition prints Main article: Edition Limited edition prints, also known as LE's, have been standard in printmaking from the nineteenth century onwards. A limit to the print run is crucial, as many traditional printmaking techniques can only produce a limited number of best quality impressions. This can be as few as ten or twenty for a technique like drypoint, but more commonly would be in the low hundreds - print runs of over a thousand are regarded as dubious by the serious art market for original prints, even though with many techniques there is no loss of quality. Edition sizes higher than about 500 are likely to be of print reproductions of paintings, of much less value, though some modern techniques blur this traditional distinction. As in other fields, the use of the concept has become largely driven by marketing imperatives, and has been misused in parts of the market. In particular, lithographic, photogravure, rotogravure, and giclee reproductions of prints, derived from photographs of an original print, which are most unlikely to have any investment value, are often issued in limited editions implying that they will have such value. These need to be distinguished from the original artist's print, carefully produced directly from his work, and printed under the artist's supervision. Consumer protection In UK and New Zealand the Fine Art Trade Guild ensures the quality and verification of limited edition prints by employing a number of strictly administered regulations for all processes and aspects related to them. In the United States limited editions are regulated under state consumer protections laws. California became the first state to regulate the sale of limited edition art prints with the "California Print Law" of 1971. The state of Illinois later expanded on the California statute. However, 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 perspective 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 that $100.00 (not including frame). Charitable organizations are specifically exempt from the provision of the law. The statute of limitations is one year after discovery, and, if discovery of the violation is not made within three years of the sale, then the purchaser’s remedies are extinguished.[1] A limited edition is normally hand signed and numbered by the artist, typically in pencil, in the form (e.g.): 14/100. The first number is the number of the print itself. The second number is the number of overall prints the artist will print of that image. The lower the second number is, the more valuable and collectible the limited editions are likely to be, within whatever their price range is. A small number of "artists' proofs" may also be produced as well, signed and with "AP", "proof", etc. Prints that are given to someone or are for some reason unsuitable for sale are marked "H. C." or "H/C", meaning "hors de commerce", not for sale |
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 13:58:41 GMT 1, As I stated at the top of the article, its a US article. However there is a similar Law in place in the UK.
I'll find it.
As I stated at the top of the article, its a US article. However there is a similar Law in place in the UK.
I'll find it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 14:03:29 GMT 1, Ok so I was told there was a law in the UK by my framer. However it appears it not law, but unethical in the UK.
From the 'Fine art guild'.
It has not yet been found illegal to do so, but it is generally considered unethical and this practice would be detrimental to the reputations of both artist and publisher. When prints are registered with the Guild the publisher signs a legally binding declaration stating the extent of the limited edition print-run, and confirming that the image will not be seen in any other form (eg open edition, greeting card, stitch-work kit). The industry as a whole has taken the Guild's lead and followed this example, so reputable publishers would not produce a limited edition as a greeting card, unless accompanied by full disclosure.
Ok so I was told there was a law in the UK by my framer. However it appears it not law, but unethical in the UK.
From the 'Fine art guild'.
It has not yet been found illegal to do so, but it is generally considered unethical and this practice would be detrimental to the reputations of both artist and publisher. When prints are registered with the Guild the publisher signs a legally binding declaration stating the extent of the limited edition print-run, and confirming that the image will not be seen in any other form (eg open edition, greeting card, stitch-work kit). The industry as a whole has taken the Guild's lead and followed this example, so reputable publishers would not produce a limited edition as a greeting card, unless accompanied by full disclosure.
|
|
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 14:05:39 GMT 1, if he can create , own the intellectual property and flog this crap, the I don't see why he cant re-release tweaked versions until EVERY HOUSE IN THE WORLD has a copy
if he can create , own the intellectual property and flog this crap, the I don't see why he cant re-release tweaked versions until EVERY HOUSE IN THE WORLD has a copy
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
Posts • 9,190
Likes • 8,545
May 2011
|
New hutch roller girl, by iamzero on Mar 19, 2014 14:25:38 GMT 1, I don't have a problem with what he's done but I guess if you panic bought one of these and paid secondary market over the odds I guess you'd be upset a little? I still think the blue and the pink are superior colour ways of a great image.
I don't have a problem with what he's done but I guess if you panic bought one of these and paid secondary market over the odds I guess you'd be upset a little? I still think the blue and the pink are superior colour ways of a great image.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 14:32:38 GMT 1, I personally think if you have openly stated 'this is the last edition', its shit to do another version(unless it significantly differs) . Not much better than theft.
I don't own this or ever will, but If I had spent cash then I would feel cheated.
I personally think if you have openly stated 'this is the last edition', its shit to do another version(unless it significantly differs) . Not much better than theft.
I don't own this or ever will, but If I had spent cash then I would feel cheated.
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
Posts • 5,869
Likes • 5,480
September 2013
|
New hutch roller girl, by Poster Bob on Mar 19, 2014 14:57:28 GMT 1, So it is without a doubt legal but dishonest and we are just talking about butt hurt flippers.
So it is without a doubt legal but dishonest and we are just talking about butt hurt flippers.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:03:53 GMT 1, going to agree with Slammer on this one.... not the right thing for the artist to do, though it is their right I suppose
going to agree with Slammer on this one.... not the right thing for the artist to do, though it is their right I suppose
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:04:54 GMT 1, Nope, just people who have been told x and then find out its abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyz and x.
POW have been guilty of releasing prints and then when they sell out releasing a 'special' version. All that's different is a silver background.
The point is, If you have bought something and then find out there are more editions coming. But that info isn't available before or at least as they are being sold. You may buy something that you wouldn't have(not just flippers, but e.g. a colourway in which you may have prefered the other version).
That's wrong imo.
Nope, just people who have been told x and then find out its abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyz and x.
POW have been guilty of releasing prints and then when they sell out releasing a 'special' version. All that's different is a silver background.
The point is, If you have bought something and then find out there are more editions coming. But that info isn't available before or at least as they are being sold. You may buy something that you wouldn't have(not just flippers, but e.g. a colourway in which you may have prefered the other version).
That's wrong imo.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:05:32 GMT 1, Some galleries encourage the behavior.
Some galleries encourage the behavior.
|
|
Damien
Junior Member
Posts • 3,324
Likes • 284
July 2008
|
New hutch roller girl, by Damien on Mar 19, 2014 15:10:34 GMT 1, does anyone actually have this on their wall?
does anyone actually have this on their wall?
|
|
|
|
kbfrombk
Junior Member
Posts • 2,073
Likes • 1,264
October 2013
|
New hutch roller girl, by kbfrombk on Mar 19, 2014 15:19:09 GMT 1, i would usually keep my 'mouth' shut but i just popped the image open a few times and can't help but feel a little perverted when doing so. what about this would compel someone to say "fück yes i MUST frame and display this at once!"??
i just don't see a need for it. it's like pedophile art?
i would usually keep my 'mouth' shut but i just popped the image open a few times and can't help but feel a little perverted when doing so. what about this would compel someone to say "fück yes i MUST frame and display this at once!"??
i just don't see a need for it. it's like pedophile art?
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:21:03 GMT 1, All it would take is a simple statement like
'I reserve the right to produce more editions of this image. All would vary slightly'.
All it would take is a simple statement like
'I reserve the right to produce more editions of this image. All would vary slightly'.
|
|
Damien
Junior Member
Posts • 3,324
Likes • 284
July 2008
|
New hutch roller girl, by Damien on Mar 19, 2014 15:21:17 GMT 1, she does look over 18 but not an image i would put up
she does look over 18 but not an image i would put up
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:22:23 GMT 1, i would usually keep my 'mouth' shut but i just popped the image open a few times and can't help but feel a little perverted when doing so. what about this would compel someone to say "fück yes i MUST frame and display this at once!"?? i just don't see a need for it. it's like pedophile art?
i would usually keep my 'mouth' shut but i just popped the image open a few times and can't help but feel a little perverted when doing so. what about this would compel someone to say "fück yes i MUST frame and display this at once!"?? i just don't see a need for it. it's like pedophile art? That's what I was implying when I said 'I'm not sure she's old enough to roller skate'. |
|
Damien
Junior Member
Posts • 3,324
Likes • 284
July 2008
|
New hutch roller girl, by Damien on Mar 19, 2014 15:22:52 GMT 1, damien hirst would be in prison now if it were illegal though haha
damien hirst would be in prison now if it were illegal though haha
|
|
|
|
New hutch roller girl, by Young Squire on Mar 19, 2014 15:23:50 GMT 1, I don't see how this is any different to Hirst releasing new spot prints with different colours. Mind you, we all know he isnt the most ethical man alive!
I don't see how this is any different to Hirst releasing new spot prints with different colours. Mind you, we all know he isnt the most ethical man alive!
|
|
kbfrombk
Junior Member
Posts • 2,073
Likes • 1,264
October 2013
|
New hutch roller girl, by kbfrombk on Mar 19, 2014 15:25:25 GMT 1, i would usually keep my 'mouth' shut but i just popped the image open a few times and can't help but feel a little perverted when doing so. what about this would compel someone to say "fück yes i MUST frame and display this at once!"?? i just don't see a need for it. it's like pedophile art? That's what I was implying when I said 'I'm not sure she's old enough to roller skate'.
this is one of those cases where it would have made a far better prison tattoo than gallery art!!
did i just invent a new game "Is It A Prison Tattoo or Gallery Art?" 
i would usually keep my 'mouth' shut but i just popped the image open a few times and can't help but feel a little perverted when doing so. what about this would compel someone to say "fück yes i MUST frame and display this at once!"?? i just don't see a need for it. it's like pedophile art? That's what I was implying when I said 'I'm not sure she's old enough to roller skate'. yea... again, sorry for being crudely blunt. but it's irritating, to hear of a sneaky second (or third?) release... this is one of those cases where it would have made a far better prison tattoo than gallery art!! did i just invent a new game "Is It A Prison Tattoo or Gallery Art?" |
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
New hutch roller girl, by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:26:06 GMT 1, what about this would compel someone to say "fück yes i MUST frame and display this at once!"??
Agree with you.
what about this would compel someone to say "fück yes i MUST frame and display this at once!"?? Being a single bloke perhaps? Agree with you. |
|
