<p>Since this is a reproduction it should not be labelled in the manner of an original work of art. A more appropriate label would be:</p>
<p>Reproduction of &quot;<em>Name of Original</em> by <em>Artist's Name</em>, <em>Date of Original</em>, <em>Original Medium</em>&quot;</p>
<p>You could use the method of reproduction in place of the word and citing the original medium is very optional. The title should be underlined (unable to figure how to format that here). You do not want to confuse the viewer into thinking that the work at hand is in anyway an original piece.</p>
<p>Of course, even as a family member, if you are not the original artist (ie copyright owner) you will need to have that person or their estate's permission to publicly display or sell the prints.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T19:34:21.597Z
No inclusion of the dimensions or mention of the printer, photographer, or framer?
Ungar Linski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T19:38:28.270Z
Yes, the original size could be cited. But being a photo reproduction means it does not have any caché or status as a work of art beyond being a reference. The person making the repro print is not part of the work unless you are Richard Prince.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T21:12:42.367Z
"*It should not be labelled in the manner of an original work of art*": why?
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-25T12:53:15.503Z
@Joachim - because it is not an original work of art. It is more like a reproduction in a book only presented in a different context.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-25T12:59:50.637Z
That is why citing the dimensions of the original, or even the medium, is of lesser importance, though I understand why one would want to include it to make a record of the original work.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-25T13:26:20.030Z
I included those things because the OP seems to want to include them. And because of that, I think it's more logical to adhere to established standards, because most people will be familiar with that format.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-25T16:15:21.840Z
RIght, those are established standards for the item *on view*, not a picture of the item. That is why putting a title card that looks like it would for the original work and then parenthetically mentioning that it is a reproduction is problematic.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-27T02:02:54.587Z
Underlined and italicized for the title?  And a period before the second quotation mark?
Ungar Linski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-27T16:18:57.640Z
The italics were to show the words that were variable, not necessarily italicized when it has the actual title, artist name, etc. Underline and/or italicize so the title stands out, the rest is at your discretion. Like @Joachim points out there is no actual standard, just convention.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T19:19:23.953Z
2024-03-24T19:25:02.523Z
2024-03-24T19:25:02.523Z
rebusB
<p>This could be a cultural or local difference, but I'm personally more familiar with the artist name coming first, wherever it involves promotional or commercial material (i.e. in western/northern Europe, but prevalent in the US as well, I believe).</p>
<p>As for your question, I would simply state that the item is a reproduction, and what medium is used to produce it:</p>
<div class="s-table-container"><table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>format</th>
<th>example</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><em>artist name</em></td>
<td>Kazimir Severinovich Malewitsch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><em>title</em></td>
<td>Female Torso</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><em>original dimensions (height x width)</em></td>
<td>52 x 73 cm</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><em>medium</em></td>
<td>oil on canvas</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><em>This is a photographic reproduction (medium)</em></td>
<td><strong>This is a photographic reproduction (giclée print on canvas)</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></div>
<ul>
<li>You can add the artist's year of birth (and year of death if deceased) between parentheses after the artist's name.</li>
<li>You can add the year of production after the title (e.g. '<em>Female Torso, 1928/32</em>') or between title and dimensions.</li>
<li>It's also customary to indicate the type of edition (open or limited), and the number, in case of the limited, numbered edition. Buyers will want to know how unique their print is. This is usually added manually (and by the artist, who usually provides a signature, as well) when the prints are checked, which gives it an even more appealing look.</li>
<li>In your case there is no difference, but I pointed out that the dimensions noted on the back (or elsewhere) are of the original, for clarity's sake.</li>
<li>You can alternatively opt for '<em>Medium (this is a photographic reproduction)</em>' or '<em>Medium. This is a photographic reproduction.</em>', depending on what you find important and want to emphasize.<br />
Once people notice the medium that is mentioned first is different from the medium of the item they are holding, they will usually realize that it's a reproduction, but this might not be as straightforward to people not familiar with either.</li>
<li>As a final note: there are standards, but no regulations: ultimately you can choose what you prefer based on your own wishes and experience.<br />
The best thing to do, of course, is to let the artist decide, if possible, and discuss options that let the their (artistic) intentions come to the fore, but will also take into account the commercial viability.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T14:01:30.720Z
The label then would be just the entries in the Example column?  Or would it be both the Format and Example column like 'Artist Name:  Kazimir Severinovich Malewitsch', 'Title:  Female Torso', and so on like a fill-in-the-blank.
Ungar Linski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T14:03:51.390Z
Is it customary to credit the framer or the photographer?  The "photographer" was just me, so no one special, but I thought I'd ask.
Ungar Linski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T19:26:29.603Z
This still looks too much like the title card for an original work. The fact that it is a reproduction has to be emphasized.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T21:05:44.037Z
@UngarLinski: no, I think that can be deduced from the information, as well as this quite standard sequence of data. Crediting the photographer and editor is a possibility, but not customary, because it's not an artistic endeavour (rather, you'd want it to look as much as the original as possible).
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T21:07:16.473Z
@rebusB I don't get that criticism: stating that very fact is a clear enough emphasis—nobody will mistake the back of a reproduction for the title card of the original artwork, especially with these sizes.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-25T12:47:56.397Z
@Joachim Because the clarification that it is not the original work is stated last it will be more easily overlooked.  In a way it would be burying its true nature in the small print. A casual observer may believe they are looking at the original which could be exploited by the unscrupulous. As far as editions go, this should only be done by the original artist or their inheritors, again for the same reason that someone could essentially steal the work from its creator.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-25T13:29:43.977Z
@rebusB Those are good points. This might not have been obvious, being common in answers, but the boldface was intentional, to bring it to attention by giving it special emphasis. Exploitation by the unscrupulous is unfortunately always a risk, and so is not properly looking at what one is investing in - the info is there. As for the indication of editions: I edited my answer slightly. These norms vary as well (for example with limited editions on demand), but that is indeed good to emphasize.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-24T10:05:36.660Z
2024-03-25T13:30:44.643Z
2024-03-25T13:30:44.643Z
Joachim
<p><strong>Problem:</strong> I have photographed original paintings by a family member and decided to print and frame a few of the photographs.  The prints are the same size as the original artwork, so 24&quot; x 30&quot; or 11&quot; x 14&quot;, for example. I'm not sure how to label them on the back of the frame so it's clear that it's a print of a photograph of the artwork and not the artwork itself.</p>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> How do I format a label for such a framed print of a photograph of a painting?</p>
<p><strong>Attempt:</strong></p>
<p>Title<br />
Dimensions of original artwork (which is the same as the dimensions of the print)<br />
Medium of the original artwork (e.g., acrylic on canvas)<br />
Artist</p>
<p>But the above does not make clear that this is only a print.</p>

<printing><framing>
How to format a label for a framed print of a photograph of a painting
Ungar Linski
# How to format a label for a framed print of a photograph of a painting

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-03-23)

**Problem:** I have photographed original paintings by a family member and decided to print and frame a few of the photographs. The prints are the same size as the original artwork, so 24" x 30" or 11" x 14", for example. I'm not sure how to label them on the back of the frame so it's clear that it's a print of a photograph of the artwork and not the artwork itself.

**Question:** How do I format a label for such a framed print of a photograph of a painting?

**Attempt:**

Title  
Dimensions of original artwork (which is the same as the dimensions of the print)  
Medium of the original artwork (e.g., acrylic on canvas)  
Artist

But the above does not make clear that this is only a print.

**Tags:** printing, framing


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2024-03-24. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Since this is a reproduction it should not be labelled in the manner of an original work of art. A more appropriate label would be:

Reproduction of "*Name of Original* by *Artist's Name*, *Date of Original*, *Original Medium*"

You could use the method of reproduction in place of the word and citing the original medium is very optional. The title should be underlined (unable to figure how to format that here). You do not want to confuse the viewer into thinking that the work at hand is in anyway an original piece.

Of course, even as a family member, if you are not the original artist (ie copyright owner) you will need to have that person or their estate's permission to publicly display or sell the prints.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: No inclusion of the dimensions or mention of the printer, photographer, or framer?  
> **username_1**: Yes, the original size could be cited. But being a photo reproduction means it does not have any caché or status as a work of art beyond being a reference. The person making the repro print is not part of the work unless you are Richard Prince.  
> **username_2**: "*It should not be labelled in the manner of an original work of art*": why?  
> **username_1**: @username_2 - because it is not an original work of art. It is more like a reproduction in a book only presented in a different context.  
> **username_1**: That is why citing the dimensions of the original, or even the medium, is of lesser importance, though I understand why one would want to include it to make a record of the original work.  
> **username_2**: I included those things because the OP seems to want to include them. And because of that, I think it's more logical to adhere to established standards, because most people will be familiar with that format.  
> **username_1**: RIght, those are established standards for the item *on view*, not a picture of the item. That is why putting a title card that looks like it would for the original work and then parenthetically mentioning that it is a reproduction is problematic.  
> **username_0**: Underlined and italicized for the title?  And a period before the second quotation mark?  
> **username_1**: The italics were to show the words that were variable, not necessarily italicized when it has the actual title, artist name, etc. Underline and/or italicize so the title stands out, the rest is at your discretion. Like @username_2 points out there is no actual standard, just convention.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-03-24. Score: 1

This could be a cultural or local difference, but I'm personally more familiar with the artist name coming first, wherever it involves promotional or commercial material (i.e. in western/northern Europe, but prevalent in the US as well, I believe).

As for your question, I would simply state that the item is a reproduction, and what medium is used to produce it:

| format | example |
| --- | --- |
| *artist name* | Kazimir Severinovich Malewitsch |
| *title* | Female Torso |
| *original dimensions (height x width)* | 52 x 73 cm |
| *medium* | oil on canvas |
| *This is a photographic reproduction (medium)* | **This is a photographic reproduction (giclée print on canvas)** |

* You can add the artist's year of birth (and year of death if deceased) between parentheses after the artist's name.
* You can add the year of production after the title (e.g. '*Female Torso, 1928/32*') or between title and dimensions.
* It's also customary to indicate the type of edition (open or limited), and the number, in case of the limited, numbered edition. Buyers will want to know how unique their print is. This is usually added manually (and by the artist, who usually provides a signature, as well) when the prints are checked, which gives it an even more appealing look.
* In your case there is no difference, but I pointed out that the dimensions noted on the back (or elsewhere) are of the original, for clarity's sake.
* You can alternatively opt for '*Medium (this is a photographic reproduction)*' or '*Medium. This is a photographic reproduction.*', depending on what you find important and want to emphasize.  
  Once people notice the medium that is mentioned first is different from the medium of the item they are holding, they will usually realize that it's a reproduction, but this might not be as straightforward to people not familiar with either.
* As a final note: there are standards, but no regulations: ultimately you can choose what you prefer based on your own wishes and experience.  
  The best thing to do, of course, is to let the artist decide, if possible, and discuss options that let the their (artistic) intentions come to the fore, but will also take into account the commercial viability.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The label then would be just the entries in the Example column?  Or would it be both the Format and Example column like 'Artist Name:  Kazimir Severinovich Malewitsch', 'Title:  Female Torso', and so on like a fill-in-the-blank.  
> **username_0**: Is it customary to credit the framer or the photographer?  The "photographer" was just me, so no one special, but I thought I'd ask.  
> **username_1**: This still looks too much like the title card for an original work. The fact that it is a reproduction has to be emphasized.  
> **username_2**: @UngarLinski: no, I think that can be deduced from the information, as well as this quite standard sequence of data. Crediting the photographer and editor is a possibility, but not customary, because it's not an artistic endeavour (rather, you'd want it to look as much as the original as possible).  
> **username_2**: @username_1 I don't get that criticism: stating that very fact is a clear enough emphasis—nobody will mistake the back of a reproduction for the title card of the original artwork, especially with these sizes.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 Because the clarification that it is not the original work is stated last it will be more easily overlooked.  In a way it would be burying its true nature in the small print. A casual observer may believe they are looking at the original which could be exploited by the unscrupulous. As far as editions go, this should only be done by the original artist or their inheritors, again for the same reason that someone could essentially steal the work from its creator.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 Those are good points. This might not have been obvious, being common in answers, but the boldface was intentional, to bring it to attention by giving it special emphasis. Exploitation by the unscrupulous is unfortunately always a risk, and so is not properly looking at what one is investing in - the info is there. As for the indication of editions: I edited my answer slightly. These norms vary as well (for example with limited editions on demand), but that is indeed good to emphasize.  

---

