The 5% art sale royalty
I have to say the more I think about the 5% royalty on sale proposal for artworks, the more I don’t like it.
At the end of the day it is the state interfering in voluntary transactions. No artist has to sell for a price below what they want, and no buyer has to pay more than what they want. Now if an artist wants to include a sales clause which says if you resell, give me 5% then good on them. And if the buyers are okay with that, all the better.
But to have the state legislate to force such a clause on every single sale, is unjustified.
The NZ Herald editorial actually supports the proposal. They say:
The most cogent objection is that such a right is an unwarranted interference with common law property contracts. These assume ownership and attendant rights transfer in full upon the sale of, say, a house. But this must be balanced against the moral and economic right for artists to be guaranteed a fair return for their work. Copyright rules protect authors from exploitation, as do intellectual property rules in other areas, yet no similar dilution of the law of property applies to New Zealand visual artists.
I wonder if the NZ Herald could define for us what is a fair return, and at what level should this be? Why 5%? Why not 50%? I mean if one is going to have the state decide everything, instead of leaving it to buyers and sellers.
The Dominion Post argues against the proposal:
It recognises that life should be devoid of risks and that those who invest in art should not profit unduly from it. It is socialism en salon. If it were a painting it would be titled: Beehive Landscape – Impressing the Artists (hot-air-brushed oil on public canvas).
It is the compulsion to pay that differentiates the Government move. It is one that radical political landscape creator Sir Robert Muldoon would have been proud of. And there is every reason why it should apply to other sectors of the economy. Once again New Zealand could lead the world in social experimentation. A stud ram, for instance, could attract a royalty when sold, every deposit a winner. So, too, race horses. Every win a double.
The glaring minus of the proposal is that it does not allow for losses. What if an artwork falls in value? The artist can always go on the dole but what of the unfortunate buyer? If we are to socialise gains, why not losses too? An Arts Equalisation Authority could be established, its board a handy repository for the paint by numbers List members whose pigments have long faded.
I like the Dom Post leader writer when he or she gets sarcastic.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
David, you say:
>At the end of the day it is the state interfering in voluntary transactions……But to have the state legislate to force such a clause on every single sale, is unjustified.
However this occurs already whenever anyone transacts because GST must be included. GST is just as obnoxious as this 5% tax, and for the same reasons you give. I hope you are also going to be consistent and advocate the abolition of GST.
Julian Darby
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Pray tell what happens if I sell my Hotere watercolour for a loss?
Does poor old Ralph Hotere reimburse me for the loss on the investment from when I purchased it from a third party?
Yeah right.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Julian – there is a difference between imposing a tax which goes to the government, and a law which says you don’t have full ownership of something you have purchased.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I’m with you, Julian. Let’s abolish GST. It is an unwarranted government intrusion.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Only in NZ would this be anything but laughed at.
The left and the yarts, a slimy combination of charders and patronage.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
David,
You correctly identified the principle that “At the end of the day it is the state interfering in voluntary transactions” and I applaud you for that.
GST and this Art “tax” may be different in detail (ie who receives funds etc) but the principle is the same. If you argue that the government has no right to interfere in voluntary transactions then is it too much to expect that you would also advocate the removal of GST which is an even more blatant example of government interference.
Julian Darby
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Will it count my house renovations? They are a work of art. Or a boy racer’s custom car? Or maybe a restored classic yacht? What about a formal garden, planted out with artistic care?
Or what if Wellington City Council transfers a Henry Moore sculpture to the Wellington Sculpture Trust. Sounds like a transaction. Time for a clip of the ticket? Or a sculpture in a building? When the building is sold, is the artwork sold too? Who pays?
What about public art. That never gets sold, which is unfair on the artist. We should levy rich people so that there is a fund to pay public artists a regular royalty. $1000 per year for the statue of Sir Clifford Plimmer sounds about right. Actually, that’s council owned, so ratepayers can add the expense to their rates.
But what if thieves steal the statue? There will be an insurance payout to replace it. Should the artist get 5% of that?
Oh, I know how it will work. It’ll only be artists that the Minister *likes* that will be eligible.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
There are those in our society who see themselves as “special” and far above us common people and so they have an expectation of special treatment. Academics being elevated by legislation as “the consience of the people” is an example.
This proposal will do the same for artists but not for other creative sectors. I spent 20 years creative energy developing a farm which I sold 10 years ago and I was rewarded for my investment of time and money. If I had not been I would not have sold it. If that farm was sold now it would be worth a lot more than I got for it. Imagine if I demanded a slice of that.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I have a used toilet for sale on trademe. As tth Government sponsored a similar shitter as NZ’s entry in the last Venice Bienniale, I assume this is a work of art and I need to track down the estate of Mr Crapper and offer him a percentage…??
This is an idiot law – a solution looking for a problem.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
It’s an election floater. It will never happen, but it makes the arty types feel like Labour care. Joe average will forget about it by election time, the arty types will remember that Labour care and vote for them. Meantime, we get to froth about it as if it would actually happen – because if we didn’t, they might be stupid enough to actually pass the law.
Ah, politics, so much fun for such a small investment of money.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I’m surprised how many artists have bared their true greedy/selfish capitalist streak to support this! What happened to starving in the garret…
Michael Smithers et al (who already include such a clause with the sale of their “product”) are no more than manufacturers, working for the filthy lucre.
P.S. Question for Helen Clark – who gets the kick-back (the person who paints the picture, or the person who signs it?)
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Art is fuck’n bullshit. You go to the Auckland Art gallery and you see bullshit everywhere. Some 5 year old scribble being displayed in there as Art. I think that I can take my rubbish bin to the gallery for display because it is an art. The sooner the artists disappeared from the face of the earth, the better humanity is.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Can I get $500,000 for my outhouse?
If it helps its brays like a donkey and is therefore “art”… or crap depending on whether or not you drink chardonnay.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
The lot of you grow up….
This isn’t about H1′s autograph or GST (really, does everything have to be framed in your silly black and white world of tax v. no-one-else-deserves-anything-from-me).
It’s about The Market’s failure to reward the creators of intellectual property (im this case Art), and solutions to reward those who pour their souls onto canvas.
Without Art, you wouldn’t have you’re precious Capitalism and Free Markets [no art --> no perspective --> no architecture --> no office blocks | no art --> no printing press --> goodbye 20th century]
April 24th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Shit James, that was special. Without art we wouldn’t have Capitalism. I didn’t follow the logic you had after that, but I am sure it was convincing
Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the market doesn’t reward the creators of intellectual property? And why does art get a capital letter? Does it make it feel more special or worthy somehow?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Where is the market failure, James? There’s no market failure here – no externalities, no constraints on contracts. There’s some uncertainty and risk, but allocating rights and risks is what contracts are for.
Artists can include on-sale royalty clauses in their sales contracts if they wish. They can also retain copyright, licensing rights, and rights to reproduction. There’s few limits on the ways you can write a contract to allocate rights and risks between the artist and the buyer.
A sale contract without such a future royalty clause leaves the buyer to take all the risk and reap all the benefit if the artist’s work becomes more valuable in future. That’s a choice both parties take, and if the artist has real potential, a premium will be paid for the likely appreciation in value.
I haven’t heard any proposal for artists to “buy back” their 5% share of the property rights in their past work that they’ve sold. Surely this is the least they should be asked to do if they’re to claim a stake in future on-sale.
I’ve got several fairly mediocre pieces by fairly average artists. I paid rather generous prices for some of them – doing so is rather an act of charity (or “patronage”). Fat chance that any of these works will ever again sell for what I paid for them. If one of them does appreciate in value, I’m buggered if I can see why I should owe the artist another cent!
April 24th, 2007 at 12:36 am
I’m glad to see you’ve some around, David.
For those who compare it to GST, there is one huge difference … GST is on the increase (or decrease) of value between when you buy and sell. And the IRD does in fact return money to you. This proposed levy is more like Jim Anderton’s proposed 15 (was it?) tax every time you move money from one bank account to another.
I’d love to see any tax, including GST, go, but the government does apparently need a little money to operate with. It would be nice if things the government did could all be financed through voluntary transactions, but any of those things that could be would then constitute a viable business (or at least charity), which means the government should not in fact be doing them.
On the scale of evils GST is at least neutral with respect to incentives and it’s really income tax (both personal and corporate) that has to go away first.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:28 am
James said…
Without Art, you wouldn’t have you’re precious Capitalism and Free Markets.
James, I design and built sophisticated micro-electronics gadgets, and for fucksakes I didn’t need any idea from art. Also the engineers and scientists who designed the micro-electronic circuits inside your computer (Intel & the likes) didn’t seek art expertise or text book in order to find answers of how to do those designs. As I quoted previously, the better artists disappeared from the face of the earth, then the better humanity would be.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Bad, bad, bad idea.
When you sell something – you sell it.
Why complicate things?
Ohh Labour.Doh.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:59 am
I think the other missing part that has not been considered is that we’d need an APRA-like organisation to collect all the money that people couldn’t work out where to send. There would be quite a bit of this: unlabelled works of art, unlocatable artists, illegible signatures etc.
It could then dole out this money as it saw fit.
Obviously just what NZ needs is more bureaucracy consisting of unproductive people sucking off the teat of others success and spitting some of it back into the waiting mouths of a few supplicants. I’m sure the head would be a political appointee (just to complete this virtuous circle).
The only good side-effect of this would be that artists would flock to NZ to register themselves in order to cash in on this ludicrous scheme.
April 24th, 2007 at 7:37 am
James,
I don’t think Michaelangelo, Praxiteles, or Picasso operated under this 5% scheme. So hopefully, civilisation is safe for a while yet.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:29 am
I think kiwi donkey says it so well.
If I sell my house for $400,000 and ten years later, it is onsold for 3x that, can I claim 5% of the capital gain? And why stop at art.
What is art? Is it pictures, photography, architecture….?
HC is sending this country further down the red road of ruin.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:34 am
It’s a Maori concept …..make full and final “settlement” then come back for more in 20 years.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:03 am
OK, sorry for wandering back on topic but there was one part of the Herald editorial I found rather odd:
A resale royalty right would, first and foremost, recognise the unusual position of visual artists. Writers and musicians, unlike them, do not rely only on the initial sale as a means of benefiting financially from their talent. They gain royalties from the continuing sale and broadcasting of their work.
Um, yes and no… I’d note any artist with half a brain (and I don’t think you could call the likes of Michael Smither any flavour of dumb) would keep a pretty tight reign on their reproduction rights; as APN should know, writers and musicians don’t always. Remember the flap when a number of columnists sudden realised they’d effective signed away their rights to receive additional payment for their columns being posted on the Herald’s website? The history of pop music is also full of musicians who signed away their publishing and any control over their masters.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:07 am
But wicket…
Without ‘art’, the human interface to ” sophisticated micro-electronics gadgets” look like shit. A dweebs wet dream all but useless to the vast populous.
Oh.. and I do operate in both disciplines BTW.
You see art is about emotions, what emotions does the work instil?
By way of relational connection to the real world… people buy houses, cars, stereos with emotions. Jeremy Clarkson articulates this well when comparing Ferrari’s to ‘people movers’.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:38 am
“Only in NZ would this be anything but laughed at.”
ya reckon?
“This sort of scheme is not unusual in world terms. It has been near-universal in Europe for years, and, more recently, in Ireland, Britain and California. Altogether, about 50 countries operate such a scheme”
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,4102.sm#post4102
April 24th, 2007 at 9:38 am
kiwi_donkey – do your homework. picasso did have royalties agreements on his work, as have many artists. that’s how they flourished, which in turn is indubitably how you came to hear about him, using his name in vain & all that.
i’m not sure about the other two artists you mentioned but i bet you could easily find out before spouting off about them.
wicket, wow i bet you have a great sense of the aesthetic. zero art appreciation!? so it it takes a robot to fiddle around with robot pieces, ooo but they are “sophisticated”.
don’t get me wrong, the whole idea of implementing yet another a bureaucratic office just to protect potential future earnings of some artists is not something i necessarily agree with, either.
but the point is that galleries & dealers can make ludicrous profit margins from reselling art – 5000 percent, anyone? it’s out of all proportion with the artist selling as a means to an end.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:04 am
As an alternative to this proposal, which is pretty much unworkable, we could always look at how the Irish govt supports artists.
http://www.visualartists.ie/alr_ate_scheme.html
April 24th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I’d like the Herald to explain where this moral and economic right stems from.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:13 am
HJames wrote: “It’s about The Market’s failure to reward the creators of intellectual property”.
Some creators are well rewarded and others aren’t. Should all artists be paid the same? Should the good ones be paid the same as the bad ones? Under the proposed law, the well rewarded will be even better rewarded.
You miss the point that artists choose to be artists. They could, of course, choose to be merchant bankers. Should we pay teachers and nurses more because society doesn’t value them as much as they should? If so, how much should we pay them? Wasn’t it Pol Pot who wanted everyone to be the same?
April 24th, 2007 at 10:18 am
> but the point is that galleries & dealers can make ludicrous profit margins from reselling art – 5000 percent, anyone?
I don’t know if that’s true but there’s a simple solution – cut out the middle man. Artists can and do sell direct to the buyer.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:23 am
ross, if you don’t even know if that’s true, then with all due respect you don’t know much about art, or about selling it.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:33 am
leah, if artists are allowing dealers to get away with adding a 5000% mark up, then I dont think they know much about selling anything, let alone art.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am
But wait Theres more The Ministerproproses to establish a Complusory Repurchase of Art Programme(CRAP). The programme will levy those who dont purchase at least one piece of NZ art each year.This will ensure a fair and equitable system to report the fine artists of NZ.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Captain Crab, a lot of them know how to sell cappuccinos really well.
They only “allow” the dealers to do this because they have no choice – after they sell their work they have absolutely no rights and dealers who come into posession of the work can do what they want. That’s what this proposal seeks to address. That future profits go towards the artist’s – the creator’s – estate or income.
It’s 5% for goodness’ sake it’s hardly skin off the buyer’s nose.
ross, “artists choose to be artists”. Yes of course they do. But it’s better for everyone in the human race if we follow what we’re good at. Resisting this and choosing a profession that our talents and predisposition are not naturally inclined towards cause misery and heartache – plus failed careers.
Welcome to a diverse species.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Sonic is proposing a tax cut. Wow. Only for artists, but I can see a whole market for creatively painted objects developing. Possibly the new coloured police cars could qualify
Leah, are you confusing royalties (for reproduction, presentation, etc) with this proposal (a trailing edge tax on re-selling the one item)? There is quite a difference.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Only in NZ would this be anything but laughed at.
As Llew points out that this sort of scheme is already in place in various other countries.
Under the proposed law, the well rewarded will be even better rewarded.
Sounds like a National Party policy! Let’s have it!
April 24th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Shocked and humbled…..it just seemed so Kiwi at the time.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:39 am
“it just seemed so Kiwi at the time.”
What seems to be the kiwi way at the moment is to rail against pretty much every news item or edict from the beehive as though it heralded the end of civilisation as we know it.
We’ve become a nation of bleaters & whiners.
Maybe we always were.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
“a nation of bleaters & whiners”…….with a desire to be subsidised.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Umm, doesn’t sound so crazy to me. In case you don’t already know, when you buy a painting, you own the the physical painting, but you don’t own the copyright of the image itself. Thats why you can’t buy a painting, and then reproduce the image on a christmas card and sell it. The intellectual property of the image belongs to the artist. You are simply paying for the luxury of having the original in your lounge. When you on-sell that painting for a profit, you are benefitting from an increase in the value of the image, which belongs to the artist. Sounds reasonable to return 5% to the artist. In return for your risk, you’re getting 95% of the return.
It’s not so draconian really.
It’s similar to music and dvds. You can buy it yourself, but it’s actually illegal to use the music or film to make a profit (by say, screening it in public) even though you ‘own’ the film.
I suppose I should declare that I’m an artist, a lawyer, and a friend of Michael Smithers et al. When I sell one of my own paintings, it’s a condition that I include a 5% contract. I think it’s an ok idea. You only have to pay if you on-sell the painting which most people don’t plan to do; (if they are speculators, they’re profiting from your intellectual property so in fairness you’re entitled to a cut anyway).
The only people it will hurt are the speculators, who have been getting a free ride off the artists up til now anyway.
If you do like art, encouraging this proposal isn’t such a bad idea. It only rewards artists who’s work gets bought and sold, so dont worry about this proposal creating armies of useless dole bludging conceptual artists profitting from their indolence. Very few artists make it rich out of their own art, even talented artists find it hard to make ends meet. If you like art, supporting this proposal will definitely help to support successful artists and keep them making beautiful art.
If you don’t like art, don’t buy it, and a 5% royalty won’t ever affect you.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Umm, doesn’t sound so crazy to me. In case you don’t already know, when you buy a painting, you own the the physical painting, but you don’t own the copyright of the image itself. Thats why you can’t buy a painting, and then reproduce the image on christmas cards and sell them. The intellectual property of the image belongs to the artist. You are simply paying for the luxury of having the original in your lounge. When you on-sell that painting for a profit, you are benefitting from an increase in the value of the image, which belongs to the artist. Sounds reasonable to return 5% to the artist. In return for your risk, you’re getting 95% of the return.
It’s not so draconian really.
It’s similar to music and dvds. You can buy it yourself, but it’s actually illegal to use the music or film to make a profit (by say, screening it in public) even though you ‘own’ the film.
I suppose I should declare that I’m an artist, a lawyer, and a friend of Michael Smithers et al. When I sell one of my own paintings, it’s a condition that I include a 5% contract. I think it’s an ok idea. You only have to pay if you on-sell the painting which most people don’t plan to do; (if they are speculators, they’re profiting from your intellectual property so in fairness you’re entitled to a cut anyway).
The only people it will hurt are the speculators, who have been getting a free ride off the artists up til now anyway.
If you do like art, encouraging this proposal isn’t such a bad idea. It only rewards artists who’s work gets bought and sold, so dont worry about this proposal creating armies of useless dole bludging conceptual artists profitting from their indolence. Very few artists make it rich out of their own art, even talented artists find it hard to make ends meet. If you like art, supporting this proposal will definitely help to support successful artists and keep them making beautiful art.
If you don’t like art, don’t buy it, and a 5% royalty won’t ever affect you.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Helmet, it’s not about the royalty. It’s the fact the govt want to impose it.
Let individual artists do that.
We don’t need to be told by govt how to run our business.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Haggis-
That’s a point I agree with in principle. I just see everyone here attacking the royalty as a dumb idea. It’s not really so absurd. Especially seeing as we on the right generally like property rights. Intellectual property is intangible, but it is property. And it’s not hard to argue that intellectual property is something that a government should protect. We are in favour of patent enforcement, for example.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Helmet,
I agree with you regarding patents and it is similiar. But patents protect ideas or inventions being reproduced, and artists do have copyright.
We are suupposed to be working in a free market. Let the artist impose the royalty.
If he/she is any good, they might want to make it 10% or 20%, why leave it at 5%?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Bwooce, it’s not a tax. Taxes go to the government. The royalty would go to the artist, each and every time a piece of their work is sold, ie there is a transaction and the work changes hands.
I totally agree with helmet. Artists should and must be responsible for their own royalties otherwise the government is spending our taxes on a bunch of arts administrators shuffling paper & adding nothing to the creative fabric of NZ, or to the economy.
Maybe a simple training course for artists should be introduced, so those who don’t already do this can get their heads around this concept, and learn how to work sales agreements so they’re not completely cut out of future earnings from their work.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Following your logic Helmet, perhaps it’s not so far-fetched that architects (for example) should be eligible for the same protection from rich clients “profiteering” from their intellectual input into a building (when the building is onsold in the future, at a higher price). The client cannot commission the plans for a single new home, then knock off a few more while they’re at it – same/similar principle no?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Maybe artists should study economics and marketing before selling on an open market. If I was an artist I would only ever sell twothirds of my work and put the rest in storage. If i was any good the price would increase and I could release the saved works onto the market as required. having to rely on the government to hold my hand is a pretty sick thought. If you are good enough to negotiate a private royalty contract then good luck to you.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
“Maybe artists should study economics and marketing”
Perhaps they should concentrate on studying art?
Just a thought.
Also for those so convinced that the Market always works, consider how many painting Van Gogh sold in his lifetime.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
The architect idea is not so far fetched, and if an architect so desires, a royalty contract could be included as a sort of caveat I suppose. However, a point of difference exists. If an artwork is commissioned, the copyright is owned by the person who commissioned it, not the artist. Similarly, if an architect is commissioned to design a house for a property, or for a builder who then offers it to his customers, the copyright is owned by the person it was designed for. The royalty issue generally doesn’t come up.
I’ll admit- an element of social engineering is at work here- artists are often perceived as poor and struggling and therefore are labours babies, while architects are probably viewed by labour as being part of the “accountants law firms and golf clubs” crowd.
Having thought about it a bit more today, in my eagerness to see the practice more widely accepted i have perhaps ignored the fact that I hate govt intervention in general but again it is hard to see who is really going to get hurt by this, and the arts may benefit considerably.
And bwaikle- I can’t afford to keep two thirds of my paintings. I need to keep selling them if I want to keep painting at all. I’d like to keep a few in storage, but ideally I’d prefer to just keep selling in anticipation of a royalty return in the future. I think everyone wins that way.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Sonic I dont mean get a degree in marketing but surely a young artist putting some time and effort in thinking/studying about how they should best sell their product as part of their training would have a pay off in the future.
I also dont really think that quoting an example of an artist that lived 100+ years ago is that relevent to todays situation. In fact I would suggest that if Van Gogh was alive today his talent would be instantly recognised and he would be an extremely successful artist.
Art was hijacked by the socialists last century which is why we now have so much crap art and artists who think that the world owes them a living.
I was taught to paint oils at 10 and was selling paintings at 12 but even then I recognised the inherent risks in being an artist so only persued it as a hobby.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Helmet
I actually said to keep one third. But as many as you can afford to keep will do. I figure that if you are any good the value of the ones that you keep will far exceed the 5% royalty payments. cheers
April 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
An example
you paint 3 paintings valued at $1000 each.
In 10 years time they are worth $5000
5% royalty scenerio
total income 3 x 1000 plus 3x 5% of 5000 =$3750
my scenerio keeping 1
total income 2 x 1000 plus 1 x 5000 = $7000
so in round figures you are $3250 better off
April 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Sonic
Why would you expect the market to “work for’ artists. In some ways that is the mark of great art… its ability to transcend trends and fashions, to rise above the grubbiness of markets. There is plenty of ‘art’ that taps into a particular zeitgeist but it may be transitory and not have any real ongoing value eg soviet and nazi art. Look at the rubbish peter Creswell promotes on his site. Something today that is graphic design or craftsmanship may be tomorrow’s art solely due to its rarity rather than intrinsic artistic value (whatever that is) – witness cavepaintings, ethnic art, illuminated text.
Helmet
Copyright can also be assigned with sale and the lawyers I have dealt with usually said it had to be asserted to be maintained. So what happens when you sell a work? Does that mean you are deemed to be selling the copyright if it is not explicitly asserted?
I’d add that the intervention may not actually stimulate the market or may depress your sale prices. I would have thought you would want to encourage greater trade in your work as that might stimulate base demand and price. What is better, 5% of few sales or no percent but an increased volume, or 5% of a hypothetical future price as opposed to a full price today.
Ross
I don’t know about major galleries but the one’s my wife sells through charge a range from about 20%-40%. Some will have lower plus a hanging fee. The Affordable art show charges about 15% plus a registration.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
It’s an interesting business to be in…as a visual artist I do not expect any future return on paintings sold previously & appreciate patrons of my work more than they will ever know. I keep a few works as a ‘retirement fund’, bwakil.
Lots of interesting comments for me to read here. Thanks!
April 24th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
My understanding is that the 5% royalty proposal is only for dealers, galleries etc and not for private sales. If you think your house is a work of art but sell it through a real estate agent then there will be no royalty on any future sales of it, but if you sell your house through an art gallery there will be such a royalty.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
….I think architect’s IP rights are equivalent to those of artists, even if they probably don’t vote Labour to the same extent.
Posted by David P | April 24, 2007 5:40 PM
Not if architects are ‘commissioned’ to perform the work (ie.paid) or, a contract executed between the parties that states otherwise. Which also makes a farce (amongst many), of the idea of paying artists a commission on future sales of an artist’s work. If the artist is commissioned to do the work, then under the Copyright Act, ownership of copyright is passed onto and is vested in the identity that commissioned the works. Many people may also be unaware that ‘artistic works’, ‘models’ etc, as defined in the Copright Act, can apply to practically anything and everything, created by mankind
Posted by Paul Marsden | April 24, 2007 6:41 PM
April 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
If it only applies to dealers, galleries and auction houses then its really about making the “rich” artists richer – most beginning artists will be selling on the web etc nowadays. This is probably being pushed because some arts heiress who gives generously to the Labour party had a word in the ear of H1 over a glass oc chardonnay at an exhibition opening.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Is it just me, but is Labour doing a lot of brainfarts at the moment (i.e. flying kites that will never actually be implemented because they are just plain unworkable or obviously corrupt):
1. State funding for the Labour Party (an idea so obviously self-serving it was laughable);
2. 5% royalty on ‘art’ (an idea that is completely unworkable – to begin with, what is ‘art’?)
3. Property developers have to provide “cheap” housing (another idea which will is just unworkable in practice).
What is going on here? This kind of woolly thinking would never have been tolerated by Helen Clark nine years ago when she insisted on properly considered policy and a very disciplined approach.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:02 am
just thought I’d cut/paste an interesting point that was made over at public address:
An important factor that has been missed:
Artistic innovation.
Now, art can be unusual in the sense – it’s not like a car paint job or, well – pretty much any other commercial product – in that sometimes the work that has the most utility is not immediately apparent.
That is to say, that sometimes the great work an artist does may not be immediately understood or acknowledged. It may take everyone a few years to catch up. Now obviously, that is not always the case: just because an artist’s work is not understood at the time, it may not necessarily be any good, nor because an work is praised at the time, does it necessarily mean it’s simply in fashion. But it is the case that, particularly in case of the visual arts, that many of the great innovators have not been acknowledged at the time they sold their work.
Frankly, I feel it would be nice if we had a system which acknowledged the possibility of long term value, and rewarded artistic innovation, and the pushing of boundaries. And I don’t just mean this in terms of aesthetics, but also themes and message.
It would be nice to get out of a system, where artists no longer face the reality that investing in something that people may not catch up on for another five to ten years won’t equate to being destitute. They can actually make some money from their forward thinking, as well as the art investors, and the inevitable rip-offs that will spring up when it becomes the fashion.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:25 am
what inevitable rip off – you sell, i buy, i onsell – you have already been compensated for your effort when i paid you – what happens after i buy it is none f your business. what if it goes up in value and is destroyed in fire or nicked – do i need to stump you 5% of the insured value? not likely – rights pass on at settlement
April 25th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Paul- If you read carefully I think you and I are saying the same thing- re copyright applying to ‘artistic works’ which could include a house as well as a painting- unless of course it’s a commissioned work. Most architectural designs are commissioned, whilst few paintings are.
I guess defining what kinds of artistic work should be included under the proposal will probably be its Achilles heel.
Still I’m surprised at how many people hate the idea. I think it makes legal sense plus its a good idea anyway, but for the vague definition probably.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
What, you expecting a sensible discussion and acknowledgement of opposing ideas on Kiwiblog? No, no – this is for angry ranting only, where any discussion goes around in circles getting no where until everyone becomes frustrated and moves onto the next subject where they repeat the same tired boring rhetoric over and over again.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
alzudwpr dmatsl zopxdt lptgkcau osbyhmngr jpdwr aznsw
June 6th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
alzudwpr dmatsl zopxdt lptgkcau osbyhmngr jpdwr aznsw