Mondo Presents New ELYSIUM Limited Edition Prints

Mondo has put up some impressive stuff at this year's San Diego Comic Con, including these fantastic posters for Neill Blomkamp's upcoming Elysium. The design is by Uruguayan artist Martin Ansin, who seems to be on fire lately, bringing up one awesome print after another on almost a monthly basis. 

If you're going to SDCC today, you'll have a chance to pick up a copy of the variant edition at the Mondo booth (#936) as soon as the doors open. The regular version will be available for purchase online at Mondotees.com at a future date. The variant is limited to 175 copies and costs $75, while the regular has an edition of 380 and will cost $50. You can take a look at the images for both prints below (click for a larger version).

Around the Internet:
  • gwarseneau

    July 21, 2013

    "Limited edition prints" is an euphemism for reproductions.

    Under California Civil Code 1738-1745, a reproduction sold for $100 or more must be disclosed as a reproduction.

    Now granted these -editions of 175 to 380- of non-disclosed reproductions, being sold for $50-$75 each, do not cross the statute's legal threshold, but that would be an explanation not an excuse for failing to give full and honest disclosure to reproductions as reproductions.

    Caveat Emptor!

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

  • Euphemism? Non-disclosed? They are exactly what they say they are: A limited edition run of screen prints. There's not even remotely an attempt to mislead anybody about anything here.

  • gwarseneau

    July 21, 2013

    Dear Mr. Brown:

    I thank you for your reply.

    If I may, you have used "prints" as an euphemism for reproductions.

    Under U.S. Copyright Law 101, for something to be considered -limited- it must be a "work of visual art," which reproductions are not, and must be signed and numbered by the author, in this case: Martin Ansin. So, whether or not Martin Ansin signed and numbered these reproductions, it would still not make them limited since reproductions by there very nature are -not- limited.

    Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law 106a, the "Rights of Attribution" shall not apply to reproductions.

    In other words, these may be a reproductions of Martin Ansin's art but as reproductions they are not attributable to him.

    Finally, the failure to give full and honest disclosure to reproductions as reproductions is misleading whether it is with or without intent.

    In closing, the ignorance of fully understanding what is a reproduction and the subsequent failure to give full and honest disclosure of reproductions as reproductions may be because of ignorance rather than avarice but that would an explanation not an excuse.

    Caveat Emptor!

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

  • For something to be considered limited you need to make a fixed number and no more. That's what the word means. And nobody out there is under any big illusion about what a screen print is, or how limited the edition is given that Mondo always CLEARLY labels their stuff accurately and sticks to their edition numbers. Are you done grinding your axe / pimping your own process by dumping on others yet?

    To be very clear about my opinion:

    a) You're being petty.
    b) You're being pedantic.
    c) You're making kind of a fool of yourself by trying to imply that there is some sort of legal or ethical issue around someone selling limited edition screen prints clearly labelled as limited edition screen prints.

  • gwarseneau

    "Appealing to personal prejudices rather than reason; attacking an opponent's character rather than the opponent's assertions" is one legal definition of -ad hominem-.

    SOURCE: p 41, Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary

    All the best,

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

  • My ad-hominem retort would be pointing out your name starts with "Arse", but that would be childish, vindictive, as well as mildly amusing.

blog comments powered by Disqus
​​