Digital BW, The Print

I am certainly no attorney, but I don't believe artwork falls under 
the same category as "consumer products." I don't think we are going 
to put our work on the shelves of supermarkets or department stores, 
with a label, "Carbon Print."

These are not mass marketed goods, just simple art. As artists, we 
can take "artistic license" and call our work pretty much whatever 
we want. IMHO, we are selling our art, not the process.

Buyers and collectors are, of course, entitled to know what they are 
buying, but most art purchases - I would think - are transacted with 
individuals, artists or galleries, and a simple explanation of the 
process should be available if requested. In fact, it is probably 
not a bad idea to print up some nice cards which explain 
simply, "About the Carbon Ink Process" which can be given to the 
buyer along with the invoice/receipt. 

Here's another thought:

Paintings rendered in oil, or acrylics are referred to as "oil 
paintings" or "acrylics." Yet, oil paint is not just oil, and 
acrylics are not just acrylic (could you imagine?). They obviously 
contain pigments or dyes, and are no more "pure" than "carbon ink," 
which may not be "just carbon."

Cheers,

Jeff

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> >> Call em Carbon. Why not?
> 
> >Well, in the UK we have a thing called the "Trades Description 
Act".
> > Selling something you call carbon when it isn't might cause you 
problems.
> > Don't customers have any protection in the States?
> 
> Yes, federal, 50 states, and hundreds of county DAs have similar 
laws.  I
> worked in a related field, but will definitely not guarantee that 
what I do
> will not cause problems.
> 
> Very often, if not usually, the name used does not assure that the 
product
> is 100% that substance.  "100% Goose down" sleeping bags, etc., 
can have
> something like 20% feathers that are not down.  "Cabernet" wine 
can have a
> certain percent merlot in it.  The list is endless.  Few things 
are 100% of
> anything.  
> 
> So, is a "carbon pigment print" that is predominantly carbon OK?  
Beats me.
> At some point there is probably too much non-carbon in there, but 
I don't
> know where that point is.  Where that point is also is probably 
affected by
> what the minority constituents are and how they affect 
performance. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com