fairplay1974
New Member
Posts โข 735
Likes โข 349
June 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by fairplay1974 on Apr 3, 2012 9:31:01 GMT 1, I can take your pictures for you, Craig, as every single pic I take has got: me in it (reverse shot of a bald bloke holding a camera) or at least a glaring light bulb or the sun. I'm intrigued as to how/why the practice under 'debate' is deemed illegal and how any scammer can actually make a return doing it. Hi Trev Its illegal because its illegal to attempt to sell something that you do not own and do not have the consent of the owner to sell. How the money is made is simple. Just as an example. I post a picture of my OS Gemeos original with no intention to sell. The 3rd party takes that image and offers it to a select number of people. They get a firm offer and then try to buy it for less from me. So you might argue that if I sell than no harm has been done. I would say its highly immoral but the real problem arises when you say no and you are unaware your artwork has been offered around for months on the secondary market. I do not believe watermarks will stop this happening as stock images will be found.
This has been going on in the car market for years as well, when I had quite a high end and rare car parked on my drive I quite often got calls (likely because my insurer passed on data because I didn't tick a box!) from companies stating they had a buyer for it....Expletive repsonse was usually what they got in return!
Who really suffers in this market if a scammer offers it round for months? Their reputation will be in tatters. Their dealing in a market where reputation and trust is key.
A watermark could also help as stock images of many pieces don't exist or are harder to come by, in addition anyone looking to acquire a piece 'should' (I emphasise should) do their own research too and could find that the piece their being offered is actually stamped clearly not for sale by its owner.
I understand the annoyance and some of the issues/risks here, but a knee jerk reaction of not posting any pics of your artwork is OTT in my opinion....If it is an OG and high end I definitely see the more cautious approach is worth it, but it is a shame not to be able to see these works.....Showing them is a huge part of owning them.
I can take your pictures for you, Craig, as every single pic I take has got: me in it (reverse shot of a bald bloke holding a camera) or at least a glaring light bulb or the sun. I'm intrigued as to how/why the practice under 'debate' is deemed illegal and how any scammer can actually make a return doing it. Hi Trev Its illegal because its illegal to attempt to sell something that you do not own and do not have the consent of the owner to sell. How the money is made is simple. Just as an example. I post a picture of my OS Gemeos original with no intention to sell. The 3rd party takes that image and offers it to a select number of people. They get a firm offer and then try to buy it for less from me. So you might argue that if I sell than no harm has been done. I would say its highly immoral but the real problem arises when you say no and you are unaware your artwork has been offered around for months on the secondary market. I do not believe watermarks will stop this happening as stock images will be found. This has been going on in the car market for years as well, when I had quite a high end and rare car parked on my drive I quite often got calls (likely because my insurer passed on data because I didn't tick a box!) from companies stating they had a buyer for it....Expletive repsonse was usually what they got in return! Who really suffers in this market if a scammer offers it round for months? Their reputation will be in tatters. Their dealing in a market where reputation and trust is key. A watermark could also help as stock images of many pieces don't exist or are harder to come by, in addition anyone looking to acquire a piece 'should' (I emphasise should) do their own research too and could find that the piece their being offered is actually stamped clearly not for sale by its owner. I understand the annoyance and some of the issues/risks here, but a knee jerk reaction of not posting any pics of your artwork is OTT in my opinion....If it is an OG and high end I definitely see the more cautious approach is worth it, but it is a shame not to be able to see these works.....Showing them is a huge part of owning them.
|
|
sakyamuni
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,451
Likes โข 1,671
July 2009
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by sakyamuni on Apr 3, 2012 9:45:08 GMT 1, I have never really thought about that to be honest, maybe because i don't think i own anything that would push someone to do that. I hope we'll still have the opportunity to have a look at great artworks in the future, i always love that
I have never really thought about that to be honest, maybe because i don't think i own anything that would push someone to do that. I hope we'll still have the opportunity to have a look at great artworks in the future, i always love that
|
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,492
Likes โข 2,102
March 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by johnnyh on Apr 3, 2012 9:52:50 GMT 1, Thanks Neil and all contributing. Fully see and agree with your points Neil and as I say also the poor buyer gets taken here as well. Think the Wmark idea is good but as pointed out may not stop it but make more hassle. It is both nice to see and also to show new pieces through the board. So this could be a shame and obviously pieces do appear in for sale threads etc. mmmmmm one to ponder on
Thanks Neil and all contributing. Fully see and agree with your points Neil and as I say also the poor buyer gets taken here as well. Think the Wmark idea is good but as pointed out may not stop it but make more hassle. It is both nice to see and also to show new pieces through the board. So this could be a shame and obviously pieces do appear in for sale threads etc. mmmmmm one to ponder on
|
|
loucastel
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,551
Likes โข 53
October 2007
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by loucastel on Apr 3, 2012 10:00:12 GMT 1, Sorry, I can't really see the devastation effect of this practice, how could it affect the price of, or the reputation of the artist, because surely if we are talking "top end " artwork, then said artwork would be sold at auction, and then the price is the price. After all if the 3rd person contacts you to buy the artwork and you say no surely that is the end of the story, I should imagine that there are very few pictures that you couldn't download from the interweb, it just seems a shame if people stopped posting pics on here, as I thought that is what this place is about. This isn't a new practice anyway, just have to look through the wanted section on here, to see all the thinly disguised gallery's, and when something goes up for sale all the silly offers from said gallery's come in, quoting how much this or that piece sold for ten years ago!!! I'm luck by not having any "top end" artwork.
Sorry, I can't really see the devastation effect of this practice, how could it affect the price of, or the reputation of the artist, because surely if we are talking "top end " artwork, then said artwork would be sold at auction, and then the price is the price. After all if the 3rd person contacts you to buy the artwork and you say no surely that is the end of the story, I should imagine that there are very few pictures that you couldn't download from the interweb, it just seems a shame if people stopped posting pics on here, as I thought that is what this place is about. This isn't a new practice anyway, just have to look through the wanted section on here, to see all the thinly disguised gallery's, and when something goes up for sale all the silly offers from said gallery's come in, quoting how much this or that piece sold for ten years ago!!! I'm luck by not having any "top end" artwork.
|
|
Trevorm
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,160
Likes โข 763
August 2010
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Trevorm on Apr 3, 2012 10:08:19 GMT 1, I can take your pictures for you, Craig, as every single pic I take has got: me in it (reverse shot of a bald bloke holding a camera) or at least a glaring light bulb or the sun. I'm intrigued as to how/why the practice under 'debate' is deemed illegal and how any scammer can actually make a return doing it. Hi Trev Its illegal because its illegal to attempt to sell something that you do not own and do not have the consent of the owner to sell. How the money is made is simple. Just as an example. I post a picture of my OS Gemeos original with no intention to sell. The 3rd party takes that image and offers it to a select number of people. They get a firm offer and then try to buy it for less from me. So you might argue that if I sell than no harm has been done. I would say its highly immoral but the real problem arises when you say no and you are unaware your artwork has been offered around for months on the secondary market. I do not believe watermarks will stop this happening as stock images will be found.
Thanks Neil - As suspected really. I guess the 'perp' could also probably argue, if threatened with the police that a verbal agreement had been established with the owner of the piece.
Such a shame, this, as it's always a joy to see high end stuff (nearly) in the flesh.
I can take your pictures for you, Craig, as every single pic I take has got: me in it (reverse shot of a bald bloke holding a camera) or at least a glaring light bulb or the sun. I'm intrigued as to how/why the practice under 'debate' is deemed illegal and how any scammer can actually make a return doing it. Hi Trev Its illegal because its illegal to attempt to sell something that you do not own and do not have the consent of the owner to sell. How the money is made is simple. Just as an example. I post a picture of my OS Gemeos original with no intention to sell. The 3rd party takes that image and offers it to a select number of people. They get a firm offer and then try to buy it for less from me. So you might argue that if I sell than no harm has been done. I would say its highly immoral but the real problem arises when you say no and you are unaware your artwork has been offered around for months on the secondary market. I do not believe watermarks will stop this happening as stock images will be found. Thanks Neil - As suspected really. I guess the 'perp' could also probably argue, if threatened with the police that a verbal agreement had been established with the owner of the piece. Such a shame, this, as it's always a joy to see high end stuff (nearly) in the flesh.
|
|
|
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Happy Shopper on Apr 3, 2012 10:26:44 GMT 1, Doesn't have to be major pieces for this scam to happen. I found an online gallery offering my Nice Walker Muted Tins print. I was selling it anyway, but they were trying to sell it for 3 times the price!
Doesn't have to be major pieces for this scam to happen. I found an online gallery offering my Nice Walker Muted Tins print. I was selling it anyway, but they were trying to sell it for 3 times the price!
|
|
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Daniel Silk on Apr 3, 2012 10:47:57 GMT 1, I cant see how a watermark will stop things like this I dont think anything can stop it. People can easily just search of images on google.
I cant see how a watermark will stop things like this I dont think anything can stop it. People can easily just search of images on google.
|
|
fairplay1974
New Member
Posts โข 735
Likes โข 349
June 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by fairplay1974 on Apr 3, 2012 10:57:40 GMT 1, I cant see how a watermark will stop things like this I dont think anything can stop it. People can easily just search of images on google.
But it is a deterrent. 'People' can search on Google, so any scammer looking to sale a piece they don't own will be aware potential buyers they're pushing to can also search on Google. If said potential buyer then comes across the image water marked that it is not for sale and follows the link through to the forum they'll have the opportunity to see that they ate also being duped.
I cant see how a watermark will stop things like this I dont think anything can stop it. People can easily just search of images on google. But it is a deterrent. 'People' can search on Google, so any scammer looking to sale a piece they don't own will be aware potential buyers they're pushing to can also search on Google. If said potential buyer then comes across the image water marked that it is not for sale and follows the link through to the forum they'll have the opportunity to see that they ate also being duped.
|
|
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Daniel Silk on Apr 3, 2012 11:00:18 GMT 1, What would the watermark say that would stop people using it?
What would the watermark say that would stop people using it?
|
|
curiousgeorge
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,833
Likes โข 1,091
March 2007
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by curiousgeorge on Apr 3, 2012 11:04:26 GMT 1, Watermarking pictures is standard practise in the photography industry to stop people stealing images and passing off as own
Watermarking pictures is standard practise in the photography industry to stop people stealing images and passing off as own
|
|
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by sanchorockin78 on Apr 3, 2012 11:05:30 GMT 1, I cant see how a watermark will stop things like this I dont think anything can stop it. People can easily just search of images on google.
Agreed, If people really want an image they can source it from elsewhere, especially if it's the more popular artists work. The pro's of anyone choosing to watermark an image before posting here are they know their own piece 'may' be less likely to be used?. It's a fussy one. You lose the impact of the image depending on how much time you want to spend applying a watermark. We are all proud of our pieces and like showing them to like-minded fellows!, it would be a shame to lose that impact. Out of curiosity I have just updated an old thread of my images to see how easy it was in photobucket ( pretty easy but damn ugly!) - admittedly i went for the least subtle approach ; urbanartassociation.com/index.cgi?board=urbanart&action=display&thread=90183&page=25
I cant see how a watermark will stop things like this I dont think anything can stop it. People can easily just search of images on google. Agreed, If people really want an image they can source it from elsewhere, especially if it's the more popular artists work. The pro's of anyone choosing to watermark an image before posting here are they know their own piece 'may' be less likely to be used?. It's a fussy one. You lose the impact of the image depending on how much time you want to spend applying a watermark. We are all proud of our pieces and like showing them to like-minded fellows!, it would be a shame to lose that impact. Out of curiosity I have just updated an old thread of my images to see how easy it was in photobucket ( pretty easy but damn ugly!) - admittedly i went for the least subtle approach ; urbanartassociation.com/index.cgi?board=urbanart&action=display&thread=90183&page=25
|
|
curiousgeorge
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,833
Likes โข 1,091
March 2007
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by curiousgeorge on Apr 3, 2012 11:09:39 GMT 1, ^^ I'm guessing pictures of high end originals are few and far between
^^ I'm guessing pictures of high end originals are few and far between
|
|
Harveyn
Forum Guardian
Full Member
Posts โข 7,698
Likes โข 4,853
July 2007
Staff Member
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Harveyn on Apr 3, 2012 11:11:59 GMT 1, I cant see how a watermark will stop things like this I dont think anything can stop it. People can easily just search of images on google.
Dan I agree and all I am saying is take care and be aware this practice goes on.
I would hate to see people stopping posting their art on here as its often the highlight for me logging in.
Lou I can only talk from my personal experience and as previously noted I was contacted about a member on here who allegedly does this type of thing. That of course would need to be substantiated but as it has just happened to me I can say with 100% confidence that this definitely does happen.
As well as potentially devaluing the artwork that you own due to the approach taken by the 3rd party it does also put at risk your relationship with the gallery you bought from or even the artist. Again I am quoting from experience as the gallery approached me about this and we are now working to take what action we can against this particular individual.
Again I am talking about someone trying to sell you property without your consent/knowledge when you have no intention of selling.
I cant see how a watermark will stop things like this I dont think anything can stop it. People can easily just search of images on google. Dan I agree and all I am saying is take care and be aware this practice goes on. I would hate to see people stopping posting their art on here as its often the highlight for me logging in. Lou I can only talk from my personal experience and as previously noted I was contacted about a member on here who allegedly does this type of thing. That of course would need to be substantiated but as it has just happened to me I can say with 100% confidence that this definitely does happen. As well as potentially devaluing the artwork that you own due to the approach taken by the 3rd party it does also put at risk your relationship with the gallery you bought from or even the artist. Again I am quoting from experience as the gallery approached me about this and we are now working to take what action we can against this particular individual. Again I am talking about someone trying to sell you property without your consent/knowledge when you have no intention of selling.
|
|
|
howies
New Member
Posts โข 917
Likes โข 488
July 2008
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by howies on Apr 3, 2012 11:21:03 GMT 1, Cheers Harveyn how about a 'not for sale' watermark. Generic. If anyone knows how to create one simply they might make it available to us on here? Would do it but would probably take me a year! HB
Cheers Harveyn how about a 'not for sale' watermark. Generic. If anyone knows how to create one simply they might make it available to us on here? Would do it but would probably take me a year! HB
|
|
Hubble Bubble
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,103
Likes โข 3,539
December 2010
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Hubble Bubble on Apr 3, 2012 11:37:34 GMT 1, Legend Now how about one that says 'Fuck off scammers'
Legend Now how about one that says 'Fuck off scammers'
|
|
saint
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,887
Likes โข 1,881
September 2010
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by saint on Apr 3, 2012 11:45:07 GMT 1, Personally i think a watermark (saying something like banksy forum.com, or members name??) would be a good idea. High end og's are not often touted about so stock images are often not available. At least if someone sends you an image with a watermark like that on it you'd know where it came from....
Personally i think a watermark (saying something like banksy forum.com, or members name??) would be a good idea. High end og's are not often touted about so stock images are often not available. At least if someone sends you an image with a watermark like that on it you'd know where it came from....
|
|
fairplay1974
New Member
Posts โข 735
Likes โข 349
June 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by fairplay1974 on Apr 3, 2012 11:46:20 GMT 1, What would the watermark say that would stop people using it?
Anything you want
The point is potential buyers have to take some responsibility to, if they don't do their own homework then expect to get fleeced or duped!
If I saw an image on Google (or anywhere else) with 'Not For Sale' written on it I'd certainly follow the link to where that image is posted to find out more.
In the end what's to stop anyone providing an image of any tangible item and offering it for sale, even if they don't own it? The potential buyers have to take some responsibility on finding out if the proposed seller can actually sale the item in question!
What would the watermark say that would stop people using it? Anything you want The point is potential buyers have to take some responsibility to, if they don't do their own homework then expect to get fleeced or duped! If I saw an image on Google (or anywhere else) with 'Not For Sale' written on it I'd certainly follow the link to where that image is posted to find out more. In the end what's to stop anyone providing an image of any tangible item and offering it for sale, even if they don't own it? The potential buyers have to take some responsibility on finding out if the proposed seller can actually sale the item in question!
|
|
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by sanchorockin78 on Apr 3, 2012 11:55:51 GMT 1, Personally i think a watermark (saying something like banksy forum.com, or members name??) would be a good idea. High end og's are not often touted about so stock images are often not available. At least if someone sends you an image with a watermark like that on it you'd know where it came from....
I agree, anyone making a purchase should do their homework!..blimey I read up on anything before purchasing..took us a week to choose which Dyson because I wanted to read up on it ;D. I would not like to see my photos somewhere else!, I have posted them for this forum and it would bug me if I saw it used to sell another on ebay.
Personally i think a watermark (saying something like banksy forum.com, or members name??) would be a good idea. High end og's are not often touted about so stock images are often not available. At least if someone sends you an image with a watermark like that on it you'd know where it came from.... I agree, anyone making a purchase should do their homework!..blimey I read up on anything before purchasing..took us a week to choose which Dyson because I wanted to read up on it ;D. I would not like to see my photos somewhere else!, I have posted them for this forum and it would bug me if I saw it used to sell another on ebay.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 12:02:31 GMT 1, Perhaps the individual who is offering your piece about did so on the basis that they were pre-empting an opportunity. I mean its great that you post your pieces up for all to see, but you have to agree, it has become a regular occurence on this forum, that soon after you post, the piece becomes available for sale.
Perhaps it should also be considered how you (generalising) potentially devalue the works (originals over prints) of the artist by making them available for sale so soon and publicly after you bought them.
I'm just saying
Perhaps the individual who is offering your piece about did so on the basis that they were pre-empting an opportunity. I mean its great that you post your pieces up for all to see, but you have to agree, it has become a regular occurence on this forum, that soon after you post, the piece becomes available for sale.
Perhaps it should also be considered how you (generalising) potentially devalue the works (originals over prints) of the artist by making them available for sale so soon and publicly after you bought them.
I'm just saying
|
|
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Daniel Silk on Apr 3, 2012 12:29:46 GMT 1, Are people asking for the forum to automatically add a watermark to ALL images that said something like NOT FOR SALE? I just can't see how that's gonna work. And if it said UrbanArtAssociation or something? What does that really do?
Are people asking for the forum to automatically add a watermark to ALL images that said something like NOT FOR SALE? I just can't see how that's gonna work. And if it said UrbanArtAssociation or something? What does that really do?
|
|
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Daniel Silk on Apr 3, 2012 12:33:19 GMT 1, If think the best option is if people are worried about it then they should try to add a watermark to their own images showing there name or email address.
If think the best option is if people are worried about it then they should try to add a watermark to their own images showing there name or email address.
|
|
|
barryh
New Member
Posts โข 752
Likes โข 155
February 2012
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by barryh on Apr 3, 2012 12:33:49 GMT 1, Are people asking for the forum to automatically add a watermark to ALL images that said something like NOT FOR SALE? I just can't see how that's gonna work. And if it said UrbanArtAssociation or something? What does that really do?
Very good point... it does nothing. If top end galleries use this method of making cash, then I doubt you can stop a few people on a forum.
Are people asking for the forum to automatically add a watermark to ALL images that said something like NOT FOR SALE? I just can't see how that's gonna work. And if it said UrbanArtAssociation or something? What does that really do? Very good point... it does nothing. If top end galleries use this method of making cash, then I doubt you can stop a few people on a forum.
|
|
fairplay1974
New Member
Posts โข 735
Likes โข 349
June 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by fairplay1974 on Apr 3, 2012 12:35:16 GMT 1, Are people asking for the forum to automatically add a watermark to ALL images that said something like NOT FOR SALE? I just can't see how that's gonna work. And if it said UrbanArtAssociation or something? What does that really do?
Well in respect of the latter, it could direct potential duped buyers to the site, where they would find out it is not actually for sale or owned by the person offering it for sale.
Personally I think this whole discussion is blowing out of proportion, the scammer cannot sale something they do not own. They'll try it on, but if you don't want to sale then subject closed.
How this could potentially damage the value of a print, OG I don't know either....All I see it doing is damaging the reputation of any gallery or scammer with potential buyers, if they've offered something, agree a price and then the seller has to back out because they can't actually sell it!
The watermark could help potential buyers, that's how I see it being a positive step, also fourm members own images not being used without their consent.
Are people asking for the forum to automatically add a watermark to ALL images that said something like NOT FOR SALE? I just can't see how that's gonna work. And if it said UrbanArtAssociation or something? What does that really do? Well in respect of the latter, it could direct potential duped buyers to the site, where they would find out it is not actually for sale or owned by the person offering it for sale. Personally I think this whole discussion is blowing out of proportion, the scammer cannot sale something they do not own. They'll try it on, but if you don't want to sale then subject closed. How this could potentially damage the value of a print, OG I don't know either....All I see it doing is damaging the reputation of any gallery or scammer with potential buyers, if they've offered something, agree a price and then the seller has to back out because they can't actually sell it! The watermark could help potential buyers, that's how I see it being a positive step, also fourm members own images not being used without their consent.
|
|
fairplay1974
New Member
Posts โข 735
Likes โข 349
June 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by fairplay1974 on Apr 3, 2012 12:39:10 GMT 1, If think the best option is if people are worried about it then they should try to add a watermark to their own images showing there name or email address.
Yep, in the end any watermark has the same effect if it allows potentially duped buyers the chance to follow up on the item offered with the real owner, either directly or via the forum.
If think the best option is if people are worried about it then they should try to add a watermark to their own images showing there name or email address. Yep, in the end any watermark has the same effect if it allows potentially duped buyers the chance to follow up on the item offered with the real owner, either directly or via the forum.
|
|
artylang
New Member
Posts โข 875
Likes โข 337
December 2010
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by artylang on Apr 3, 2012 13:00:03 GMT 1, If you read about Larry Gagosians career, this is exactly how he built himself up. Only difference was that he would secretly take photos of work in wealthy clients homes.
This happened to me yesterday actually. It's a small community info gets around in a hurry.
This can really hurt your relationship with the artist or gallery you purchase from.
If you read about Larry Gagosians career, this is exactly how he built himself up. Only difference was that he would secretly take photos of work in wealthy clients homes.
This happened to me yesterday actually. It's a small community info gets around in a hurry.
This can really hurt your relationship with the artist or gallery you purchase from.
|
|
Forbidden Love
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,284
Likes โข 1,083
September 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by Forbidden Love on Apr 3, 2012 13:08:32 GMT 1, If think the best option is if people are worried about it then they should try to add a watermark to their own images showing there name or email address.
this is the best solution if your concerned.
not everyone uploads through the site anyway, people use flckr, photobucket etc. plus you wouldnt want it on all pictures which dont show prints but street work.
If think the best option is if people are worried about it then they should try to add a watermark to their own images showing there name or email address. this is the best solution if your concerned. not everyone uploads through the site anyway, people use flckr, photobucket etc. plus you wouldnt want it on all pictures which dont show prints but street work.
|
|
fairplay1974
New Member
Posts โข 735
Likes โข 349
June 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by fairplay1974 on Apr 3, 2012 13:15:59 GMT 1, I don't think there is an issue with prints, as long as the actual print number is removed/covered, this removes any risk of a potential scammer being able 'sale' your print.
This is more difficult for OGs/unique prints, but a personalised watermark could help.
The biggest concern to me would be the one artylang raised, of potential damage to a r'ship with an artist or gallery, if they didn't contact you directly to discuss seeing your work for sale so you couldn't put them straight. A watermark in this case would be a good idea if you wanted to post pics, with hopefully no other stock images being available, except from the gallery or artist that sold the piece in the firstv place......If they then didn't contact you, as owner, to discuss seeing the piece you own for sale again, then that would be pretty lame on their part too.
I don't think there is an issue with prints, as long as the actual print number is removed/covered, this removes any risk of a potential scammer being able 'sale' your print.
This is more difficult for OGs/unique prints, but a personalised watermark could help.
The biggest concern to me would be the one artylang raised, of potential damage to a r'ship with an artist or gallery, if they didn't contact you directly to discuss seeing your work for sale so you couldn't put them straight. A watermark in this case would be a good idea if you wanted to post pics, with hopefully no other stock images being available, except from the gallery or artist that sold the piece in the firstv place......If they then didn't contact you, as owner, to discuss seeing the piece you own for sale again, then that would be pretty lame on their part too.
|
|
sal
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,009
Likes โข 2,325
January 2011
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by sal on Apr 3, 2012 14:41:17 GMT 1, I just read this thread and Im not sure I understand how actually damaging this issue is!?.. I dont understand how it "damages the value of the piece of art you own", and Im curious about what the "many other negative repercussions" are!?...
I see it is annoying and totally unfair, but I can't really see the real DAMAGE.. I dont really have any high end pieces, but if someone offered my Josh Keyes OG for sale, I'd be annoyed, but I'd be curious to hear what price was offered for it... if the price is lower than I'd hope/expect, that would be disappointing, and if it was higher, I'd be happy, but I dont see how this would seriously affect me, the value of work, Josh, or the gallery that originally sold the work!?.. I understand I might not find out the final price that my piece fetched, but if I was offered money I'd take for it (the particular piece is NOT for sale, so pls don't contact me about it), that would be a good deal for me.. if not, the deal wouldn't happen, and end of the story.. it would be annoying to see it being instantly resold for the bigger amount than I got, but those things happen all the time...
I mean, I could find a buyer for lets say gold CYW for $2k, back it up with pictures and all, but that sale will never go through.. and the only thing that will suffer from it is my dignity and reputation, plus time that buyer put into it.. on the other hand, if I find a buyer for $120k, there is a big chance I could make the original owner, myself, and new owner quite happy with the deal...
I understand there could be tons of different scenarios, but I can't think of any that would make this be a major, serious issue that should prevent people from sharing the images of their collections.. again, I don't own any high end pieces, so maybe this is where rules of the game change drastically..
I just read this thread and Im not sure I understand how actually damaging this issue is!?.. I dont understand how it "damages the value of the piece of art you own", and Im curious about what the "many other negative repercussions" are!?...
I see it is annoying and totally unfair, but I can't really see the real DAMAGE.. I dont really have any high end pieces, but if someone offered my Josh Keyes OG for sale, I'd be annoyed, but I'd be curious to hear what price was offered for it... if the price is lower than I'd hope/expect, that would be disappointing, and if it was higher, I'd be happy, but I dont see how this would seriously affect me, the value of work, Josh, or the gallery that originally sold the work!?.. I understand I might not find out the final price that my piece fetched, but if I was offered money I'd take for it (the particular piece is NOT for sale, so pls don't contact me about it), that would be a good deal for me.. if not, the deal wouldn't happen, and end of the story.. it would be annoying to see it being instantly resold for the bigger amount than I got, but those things happen all the time...
I mean, I could find a buyer for lets say gold CYW for $2k, back it up with pictures and all, but that sale will never go through.. and the only thing that will suffer from it is my dignity and reputation, plus time that buyer put into it.. on the other hand, if I find a buyer for $120k, there is a big chance I could make the original owner, myself, and new owner quite happy with the deal...
I understand there could be tons of different scenarios, but I can't think of any that would make this be a major, serious issue that should prevent people from sharing the images of their collections.. again, I don't own any high end pieces, so maybe this is where rules of the game change drastically..
|
|
|
A Warning To Forum Members, by rperry on Apr 3, 2012 15:00:11 GMT 1, Lucky for me, my collection is... C R A P!!!! ;D ;D ;D
Lucky for me, my collection is... C R A P!!!! ;D ;D ;D
|
|