Suffer for your kids' kids.

July 26, 2005 12:09 PM

Droit de suite "Whenever I have met a dealer or a collector, they always seem wealthy; and whenever I have met an artist, they seem poor." -Chris Bryant, a British MP, during the discussion of a new law by which a living artists or their heirs for 70 years after their death will receive a cut of about 3 per cent whenever a piece is sold. Also here .
posted by R. Mutt (31 comments total)

I don't debate that artists are underpaid. I guess my question is how the resale tax equates with the concept of a royalty, which derives from mechanical reproduction. Some artists' works land in a museum and never leave, while other artists' works can be repeatedly traded between collectors — yet in all cases the work remains intact. I also wonder how this would be enforced without some consistent, implementable way of tracking and validating provenance.
posted by Rothko at 12:23 PM on July 26, 2005

I admire those who want to raise the quality of life for artists, but it seems this resale tax would benefit already established artists and the heirs of deceased artists more than it would the young and struggling.
posted by piers at 12:36 PM on July 26, 2005

This is simply a lottery ticket for the descendants of artists. It's neither going to pull artists out of poverty nor encourage the production of more art, because outside of The Painter of Light no artist resells for big coin during his or her lifetime. Here's a hint, artists who plan on leaving behind priceless works of art: set a couple aside for your grandkids.
posted by Nahum Tate at 12:38 PM on July 26, 2005

Given the level of shady dealing already prevalent in the art world, I have a hard time thinking that something like this would be enforcable.
posted by OmieWise at 12:47 PM on July 26, 2005

It is a shame though there doesn't seem to be a practical system in place to support artists whos work is selling for big dollars. Seems like the creators of a work should get some benefit.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:06 PM on July 26, 2005

This seems like a tax that is going to achieve the exact opposite result of its aim.
posted by bshort at 1:13 PM on July 26, 2005

Wouldn't the concept of future value of a piece be factored into the price? If an artist sells a painting to a collector today, is the transaction not of a speculative nature, whereby the collector is risking money today against potential profits tomorrow? How is this unfair to the artist? By this logic, should the artist not have to reimburse some of the purchase price should the collector not be able to sell the painting for more than the purchase price? Will inflation be counted in the levy? $1000 dollars today is say about $5000 in 50 years, why on earth should the artist receive money for an even money future transaction?

Seems like the creators of a work should get some benefit.

They did. The initial sale price. If an artist feels an offer is unfair at the time, as far as I know, the artist still is legally allowed to refuse to accept funds. Can I demand a cut from my company above and beyond my contract because the website I designed brought in millions of dollars worth of business? If I file then sell a patent eventually worth billions do I see any money from that? Of course not. Why is this any different? If I were an artist, I would just stash a bunch of signed sketches in my attic, so when I hit it big, I can just hand them out like candy...
posted by loquax at 1:14 PM on July 26, 2005

At the risk of sounding like a randroid, a free market economy of ANY sort cannot survive if the concept of First Sale is ever breached. Which is to say, if you buy something, it is yours, and if you sell something, it is no longer yours. The moment the government starts saying "Well, you can sell this... and then the sucker you sell it to has to keep paying you for its use." then things are in serious trouble. Because if you institute this rule for paintings, why not music? Or books? Let's put every used bookstore out of business trying to track down literary heirs! How about cars? Resell the car, and Chrysler gets a cut of the resale. You're cutting into their profits, so it's only fair, right?

Idiocy involving software "licenses" crosses close enough to the line as is. (and I think the first time Microsoft or whoever attempts to seriously say "You may have paid for (software) but we say you cannot use it any more," then the rules will change dramatically) But for the government to back this would be a serious threat to the financial and economic underpinnings of the country.

/just to disclaim, I am American. I'm just hoping England doesn't do this...
posted by InnocentBystander at 1:15 PM on July 26, 2005

Rothko brings up a crucial point. While I think its a great idea to investigate new ways of supporting artists and slimming down the overblown capitalization on artists by dealers, I'm a bit skeptical of merely retooling copyright law to apply to artwork pieces. Its a short term fix and the impossibility of enforcement (with the likely result of moving auctions to america or elsewhere) seems to cement its failure.
posted by torregrassa at 1:20 PM on July 26, 2005

This is a bad idea. It will benefit large creators, do nothing for small creators, and provide one more reason not to let work lapse into public domain.
I applaud the idea of helping artists make more, but taxing art buyers is dumb (and why wouldn't they simply sell valuable art outside of Britain in the future?)
posted by klangklangston at 1:26 PM on July 26, 2005

and why wouldn't they simply sell valuable art outside of Britain in the future?

They would, this would be a gift for the New York auction houses.
posted by R. Mutt at 1:45 PM on July 26, 2005

I'm a friend of the free market, but chalk me up as a contrarian on this one -- doesn't seem like a bad idea at all, so long as it's not imposed retroactively.

Contra InnocentByStander, there's absolutely no efficiency problem with attaching a residual intellectual property right to an original piece of art. Not hard to administer (since there's only one original, not multiple copies like books) and no more a constraint on resale than the sales tax, auction fees, and import/export duties which already burden the secondary market. The offshoring issue is not a problem -- an owner of the residual right would have no problem suing in the US or other territories to recover royalties unpaid after a sale in that territory, since the act of export wouldn't confer upon the importer rights (100% ownership) which didn't exist in the UK.

There isn't really a problem of misallocation of windfalls. Collectors will factor in the residual interest into their initial purchase price (paying less to reflect the fact that they will own less) so the "average" artist's heirs shouldn't be any more ahead than they were before.
posted by MattD at 1:49 PM on July 26, 2005

Surely an contract or option could be attached to the work which would fulfill the same function, without creating any more feeping creatures in the law.

If there is a demand for something like this, then the auction houses or collectors or somebody could easily implement it themselves.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:54 PM on July 26, 2005

MattD, I'm trying to decide if you're being serious or not. You are saying there's no difference between a sales tax going into government coffers, and a resale royalty fee to be given to past owners of an object?

And again, if this can be done for paintings, why NOT other creative works? Where's the line you'd draw?

And the assertion that the person can just "sue" is just... wow. You'd suggest the entire world should then be made to conform to Britian's new copyright laws? This is surely satire.

To complete this, shall we advocate the tagging of artwork with GPS trackers so that they can never be moved without the notice and permission of the person who owned them 50 years ago?
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:07 PM on July 26, 2005

And for that matter, how WOULD one track this? Obviously, I mentioned GPS sarcastically, but... If I own a piece of art, how would the government even *know* I was selling it to my friend and thus have to pay off some dead guy's grandchildren?

Would there be a new Ministry of Art to record all scribblings created across the continent? Or would it somehow fall on the artist's spawn to track the artwork's windings through public hands?

Method B would be virtually impossible to implement. Method A would create a government nightmare - an entire body devoted to nothing but keeping track of what is hanging on one's walls.

And there will *always* be black markets. It is inevitable as taxes and prostitution. It is a poor law which drives legitimate business to them, as this inevitably will.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:50 PM on July 26, 2005

how would the government even *know* I was selling it to my friend and thus have to pay off some dead guy's grandchildren

If one was to actually read the article, ...

the directive may prove hard to police because private individuals (as opposed to dealers) are exempt if they sell a work to another individual
posted by R. Mutt at 2:58 PM on July 26, 2005

One DID read the article. And if one other is going to defend this lunacy, then THAT one would have to come up with some answers to very basic problems with the idea.
posted by InnocentBystander at 3:03 PM on July 26, 2005

Where have I defended this ? Posting about a subject is not an automatic form of advocacy, right?
posted by R. Mutt at 3:08 PM on July 26, 2005

I think the first time Microsoft or whoever attempts to seriously say "You may have paid for (software) but we say you cannot use it any more," then the rules will change dramatically

online gaming companies already do this: if you breach the terms of the EULA, you are no longer allowed to use their servers, effectively making your purchased product useless. this has been held up in court.

at the same time they sue, as DMCA reverse engineering violations, people who code and set up free servers on which people can run the software they purchased.

'Trusted Computing' as currently designed will essentially allow complete remote access to a user's hardware. MS decides you broke the Office (or Windows) EULA? Office gets erased, and when you try to reinstall you find out your activation key is invalid. Time to buy a new copy.
posted by ulami at 3:10 PM on July 26, 2005

Ulami - In that case it's an online, subscription-based service. ANY monthly service can be cancelled at the provider's discretion if they don't want your business. That's just common sense, online or off. (The DMCA is more insipid lunacy, but a totally different issue.)

What I'm talking about there hasn't happened yet. What if Microsoft revoked all licenses for, say, Word 2000, locked the people out, and informed everyone that their $200 piece of software has just become useless, please go buy Vista-Word 2006. The software companies reserve these sorts of rights for themselves... but have very wisely not exercised them yet since chances good are the courts would not look favorably upon it.
posted by InnocentBystander at 3:18 PM on July 26, 2005

corporations have seen the profitability and cash flow stabilization leasing offers when compared to purchasing.. and are trying to expand this model from disposable consumer goods to less tangible assets. mostly by (re)writing IP laws.

look at Yahoo music, where you can only rent the music you listen to.. as soon as you quit paying for the service, you lose the right to listen to the music you downloaded.

why should i sell you something once when i could sell it to you every month? especially when you barely notice because your credit card is billed automatically.


this is just the art world noticing and saying 'where's mine?'
posted by ulami at 3:21 PM on July 26, 2005

And in that previous post, please pretend the words "are" and "good" are, in fact, in the proper order.
posted by InnocentBystander at 3:22 PM on July 26, 2005

Well, from what I've seen, the subscription based MP3 services aren't doing very well. Not compared to the non-restrictive and al'a carte music services. It's a sucker's game, and as a business model almost certain to fail.
posted by InnocentBystander at 3:25 PM on July 26, 2005

ulami:this is just the art world noticing and saying 'where's mine?'

Actually many artists, and art world professionals are against it.

From the FT article: The biggest supporters of the levy are the agencies that collect it, charging some 25 per cent for administration in the process. Germany's Bild-Kunst agency and the French authors' society, ADAGP. commissioned a report in 1994 that supported the levy. Bild-Kunst was made to retract a denial of the facts of Sailer's poster in the face of legal action.
posted by R. Mutt at 3:33 PM on July 26, 2005

subscription-based or not (and not all of them are), the only way you can use the software you purchased is on their servers. it's just a few pretty, expensive coasters if they disable your key, which can be done at their discretion with no legal recourse (you signed it away in the EULA). it's a very small step for other software companies to do the same thing, they just currently lack the ability to prevent people from using their software.

by combining Trusted Computing with required activation, they will finally have the ability to enforce something like this if/when they decide to implement it. They'll probably have the gall to bury something allowing them to do this in the EULA.

break the EULA, which they check on by snooping through TC backdoors.. program erased, key deactivated, all nice and legal because you agreed to it by clicking accept on the EULA. your only recourse will be to spring for a new copy of the software, or pay exhorbitant court costs. assuming they shut down/coopt open source.

yes, subscription-based services aren't doing well.. but then, we complained when we transitioned to the throw away economy. then we got used to it, shut up, and kept paying. example: my grandma just bought a new refrigerator to replace one she bought in 1939. my neighbors just bought a refrigator to replace the one they bought in 1996. guess who complained more? not the neighbors.


R. Mutt - I should have qualified that as 'the corporate art world' but thought it would be clear from context. apologies.
posted by ulami at 3:55 PM on July 26, 2005

Well, here's the thing, Ulami: If they ever get blatant about it, then the free market will provide. (god help me, I'm playing the role of market evangelist today...) If Microsoft ever wanted to ensure Linux becomes a power player, they should start playing games revoking people's licenses.

That's not to say that a subscription-based model is a bad thing, but people must KNOW what they're getting into. No one walks into Blockbuster and believes they're buying a new movie for $3.99. They know they have to give it back. However, 99% of people who buy software believe they are truly *buying* the software. If you told them Microsoft had the legal right to prevent them from using Windows whenever it felt like it, they'd laugh. Or just be horrified.

For it to be a legitimate transaction, the buyer has to understand what he's getting into. And that's the problem right now. Most buyers don't.

But anyway, this thread has gotten well and truly jacked. Back to debating the merits of taxing retaining financial possession of an item you've sold, anyone?

How about the destruction of the artwork? If the unlikely circumstance were to come about that I owned an original Thomas Kincaid (gak), and I were to burn it (the only reasonable solution) could his children come after me for denying them potential revenue?
posted by InnocentBystander at 4:07 PM on July 26, 2005

At the risk of sounding like a randroid, a free market economy of ANY sort cannot survive

You all (randroids yeah) constantly confuse reality with your idealism.

And as for that first link, what a pile of sheep excrement.
posted by nervousfritz at 4:21 PM on July 26, 2005

*blink* Was that an attack on me? I've spent the last few hours exploring in great detail why, precisely, this idea is, as you put it, "a pile of sheep excrement."

Please tell me you did not see the word "Randroid" and immediately assume I was applying that term in a favorable sense to myself.

Just tell me that. Because your use of the word "your" rather implies you did.
posted by InnocentBystander at 4:28 PM on July 26, 2005

could his children come after me for denying them potential revenue?

Just save 3% of it and mail it back to them.

on the serious side: no. as I read it, they don't retain ownership, only a cut of the profits. They only come into the picture when a piece is sold.
posted by ulami at 5:06 PM on July 26, 2005

See also here for the Capitalist Tool's take
posted by IndigoJones at 4:34 AM on July 27, 2005

"Can I demand a cut from my company above and beyond my contract because the website I designed brought in millions of dollars worth of business?"

Not my feeling at all. If I act in a motion picture and that picture is played I get a cut. If I write a book, for each copy of that book sold, I get a cut.
Seems to me great art is mostly public anyway.

Would you assert that someone who buys a masterpeice has the right to destroy it?

That said, I can't think of any method to deal with this, so I simply feel for guys who create something brilliant and eat shit all their lives.
At least Bukowski eventually got mustard for his salami sandwiches.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:35 PM on July 27, 2005