Motley Crue Journals Of The Damned Set

by Deidre Woollard (RSS feed)
Nov 25th 2008 at 12:02PM

Just how much do people love Motley Crue? The band is hoping about $500 worth. The self-proclaimed "world's most notorious rock band" has announced that Eleven Seven Music/Motley Records will release vinyl configurations of their current hit album "Saints of Los Angeles" along with their first five classic studio albums, "Too Fast For Love" (1981); "Shout at the Devil" (1983); "Theatre of Pain" (1985); "Girls, Girls, Girls" (1987) and "Dr. Feelgood" (1989) in a limited edition leather box set, "Journals Of The Damned," containing all six vinyl releases. The run of 500 is individually numbered and also contains a Shout At the Devil Era lithograph signed by all four members of the band. It goes on sale today.

Tags: motley crue, MotleyCrue, music, records, vinyl

Source

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Gary Arseneau Nov 25th 2008 2:00PM

The so-called "lithographs," being offered for sale at $100 each, are actually -non-disclosed- reproductions/posters.

Additionally, there is no such thing as "authenticity" for reproductions. The so-called "Certificate of Authenticity," for these non-disclosed reproductions misrepresented as lithographs,is a not worth the paper it is printed on.

Lithographs are original works of visual art "wholly created by hand by the artist" and "excludes any mechanical and photomechanical processes." (U.S. Customs)

Specifically, a lithograph is drawing by the artist on a limestone block, metal plate or mylar. The artist drawn image is the tool. The tool is then used by the artist to print their edition of lithographs. Like any original work of visual art, a lithograph is created by the artist. The only difference between an artist created and printed lithograph and an artist created painting, is the lithographic creative medium allows for more than one original.

Now on the other hand, under California Civil Code Statute 1738 to 1745, if you sell a reproduction for $100 or more, you are required to disclose it as a -reproduction-. Failure to do so may include but not limited to: refund, interest, treble damages and $1,000 fine per individual sale.

With an so-called "limited-edition" of 500 that would potentially be $50,000 in refund, $150,000 in treble damages and $500,000 in fines for a minimum total of $700,000 in damages. And that is not including court cost, attorney fees and expert witness fees.

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, the Right of Attribution shall not apply to a reproduction. Which in layman's terms, the printer owns the rights to the reproductions they reproduced and are only obligated to give you the 500 reproduction you paid for. All the overruns, plates, negatives and the like would be owned by printer and could if they wanted to reproduce more with or without your knowledge. There goes your so-called "limited edition." Of course you may have had all reproductions rights reassigned back to you from the printer but then you would have known they are reproductions from the very beginning.

So, my recommendation is to give full and honest disclosure to reproductions as -reproductions-. They will probably still sell them to their fans and not unfairly competing against those artists who actually create lithographs, much less those who sell fully disclosed reproductions.

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar
Fernandina Beach, Florida

just mE Nov 25th 2008 3:58PM

I think you protest too much, for this is a case of caveat emptor. Maybe the word 'lithograph' is becoming generic for poster, like 'xerox' for copy--it's not really an infringement or an attempt to deceive, rather it's sheer marketing. I mean should we really be callling giclee prints anything other than posters?

Gary Arseneau Nov 25th 2008 6:05PM

Respectfully, as an artist who laboriously creates, prepares and prints my original lithographs using limestone blocks, I would not anyone to diminish that accomplishment by commingling lithograph and reproductions as if they were interchangeable much less the same.

U.S. Customs regulations, U.S. Copyright Law and California Civil Code 1738 to 1745 confirm that there are legal standards for the factual perspective I write of.

Finally, a "knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to his or her detriment" is one legal definition of -fraud-.

What would the public think if they found out that Motly Crue Band misrepresented a poster as an original work of visual ie., lithograph for $100?

Misrepresentation for profit is -not- marketing.

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar
Fernandina Beach, Florida