Peter Lik deserves our skepticism

[RodinalDuchamp]

so what happens to his image now?
Does he have to destroy all copies of the image other then the one granted to the buyer? Do i have to pay royalties for my web browser cash?
How exactly do you sell a digital photograph, especially if so much money is involved, a buyer would want some assurances that no other reproductions can be made, IE cut the negative, hand over the hard drive? This image is so proliferated how could anyone actually sell it?

The age of the interweb has not reached everywhere on earth.

Very valid questions. It will be interesting how intellectual property rights will clash with the fine art world in a digital era. I mean I could take a bunch of famous photos reprint them and hang them in a gallery or display them on the web my defense would be that I am making an artistic statement about the state of art as media vs art as ethereal. Does the digital plane equate or simulate a third dimension? How does one limit production of something one is marketing online?

Yes I am sure lik can afford more lawyers but some artists are already dead broke nothing to lose and everything to gain from scandal. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

One step further. If I was to write/paint/print the binary code for phantom on a canvas would I be infringing on lik's property rights?

[swmcl]

Noam Chomsky ? I'm thinking it aint Norman ...

[Tin Can]

My take: if Lik staged this sale, it is problematic because


1) it means he's dishonest;

2) His dishonesty served to create false value, and therefore fleece his potential customers;

3) he made an international spectacle of his dishonesty, which also served to fuel his (apparently) colossal ego;

4) his ruse is so preposterous as to insult the intelligence of his peers and the entire art community.



On the other hand, if he didn't stage this sale,


1) he has $10 million and doesn't have to care what anyone thinks;

2) but I'm not betting on it.

I really like this presentation.

Concise and correct.

[paulr]

All of this can be said, regardless of the very high price, the subject of this thread. How do you in fact sell a digital image which is so widely proliferated?

You don't sell an image, you sell a print. Just like in analog photography.

Photographic print sales include certain stipulations. One is copyright (the photographer almost always retains it). Another is any promise regarding rarity/exclusivity (as implied by the editioning).

The whole stunt of destroying the negative is outmoded and never really became standard practice. Today people acknowledge that photography (in most forms) is a medium of multiples.

[RodinalDuchamp]

You don't sell an image, you sell a print. Just like in analog photography.

Photographic print sales include certain stipulations. One is copyright (the photographer almost always retains it). Another is any promise regarding rarity/exclusivity (as implied by the editioning).

The whole stunt of destroying the negative is outmoded and never really became standard practice. Today people acknowledge that photography (in most forms) is a medium of multiples.

Certainly. However the image is online everywhere. He is still likely selling prints of "phantom" what makes this particular print a $6M print? The likelihood of Lik producing and selling the same exact print again is highly likely though not at that price. Where is the exclusivity? This guy has "limited" runs of 950 units.

[uphereinmytree]

I need to earn a marketing degree so I can get on with making money instead of earning money.

[hoffner]

Ralph Barker,
please delete also the post n. 33. Reason - quote of inappropriate language.

[hoffner]

For those who wonder what comment got deleted in my post here it is:
Usage guidelines: To have a healthy and informative forum, it's essential that participants maintain a respectful and professional decorum. Name calling, personal attacks, character assassination, coarse or inappropriate language, or enticing/baiting others to violate forum guidelines will not be tolerated here.

[Drew Wiley]

If there's a reason I REALLY don't like these kind of art venues it's what they do to communities. Yeah, inside some casino mall in Vegas, Lik is just another faux
whatever. Big deal. But then I want a quiet beachside down from the classic old hotel in Hawaii and whammee - there's a glitzy tourist trap in your face, completely out of character. Then there's an incident where he undercut the lease of an adjacent gallery under the pretense of expansion, then apparently sublet it out to a non-gallery business to get rid of potential competition. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen this very strategy happen before. And as for Kinkade ... I walk out of my sister's house in PacificGrove down the street to the aquarium, and there's this googaw hideous gift shop totally out of character with the entire neighborhood, and then up the street, a bright pink Victorian which deliberately stands out like a sore thumb, as a mausoleum to his own ego. Don't know if it's still that color or not since his empire collapsed. And in that neighborhood, even McDonalds isn't allowed to use a lighted sign or have the golden arches. One more step down the path to ruining the ambiance of these communities. But just another slick buck to them.

[Richard Johnson]

I must disagree here Paul... Drew invented photography and we must appreciate his topical posts.

I thought Drew made light and everytime he farts it rains.