Australian Artists To Get Paid Multiple Times For Their Artwork
from the wouldn't-that-be-nice dept
We've discussed in the past how various countries have been putting in place a ridiculous resale right for artists, that allow them to collect a royalty every time their artwork is sold. In other words, this removes the important right of first sale, that says when someone buys a piece of artwork, they actually own it. Instead, these "resale rights" let various artists collect a "royalty" every time the art is resold. That would be like saying you need to pay Honda a royalty after you sold your used car. Reader madlep points out that Australia has now gone down the same road and instituted a 5% fee on any resold artwork for the artist.The Arts Minister who supported this is apparently Peter Garrett, who some of you may recognize as the lead singer of the popular rock band Midnight Oil (who I saw in concert many, many years ago). He claims that: "It's a really, really good day for Australia's artists," but that betrays a rather troubling lack of understanding of basic economics. Adding this resale right, actually serves to significantly depress the market for these artists that he's supposedly trying to protect. Because any buyer now knows that there's an additional tax on any resale, meaning that they're less willing to purchase in the first place (or only interested in purchasing for a lower price). It also makes them a lot less willing to sell the piece, because the selling price now needs to be even higher. On top of this, it will encourage more sales to be to foreign countries, where this "right" does not apply.
Garrett is also confused in saying: "Why should artists not have had the opportunity for some copyright protection of their work, or equivalent rights that writers, for example, have?" There's a very easy answer to that. Copyright protection is designed to deal with the issues of copies, not the original works. When it comes to these artists, they're selling original works. And, when I put my old Midnight Oil tapes and CDs up for sale, I'm certainly hoping that Garrett doesn't expect to get paid again for them. That would just be silly. He already received the money when I purchased them originally -- just as these artists received their money when their artwork was purchased.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: artists, australia, economics, first sale, midnight oil, peter garrett, resale rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
good news
For some reason though ... I think they don't mean "artists" but "content creators".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Join the ESA
Activision doesnt think so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In its attempt to harmonize US law to that of other signatories to international copyright treaties, the US has made some changes to its copyright law (e.g., VARA), but to date has refused to embrace the "resale right" concept and add it to the list of rights conferred by copyright law. Not being a part of our federal law, California has jumped on the European bandwagon and instituted its own counterpart. Insofar as I am aware, California stands alone among the states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OTOH, it's good "work" if you can get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sir are a dirty Monarchist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Arts
As opposed to industrial arts like drafting. At university one may obtain a Bachelor's or Master's in Fine Arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugggh...
A resale is essentially a transfer. As Mike pointed out, the artist has already been paid! When I sell my purchased item to someone else, I am denying myself access to that item. That is why I get money for that resale. The content creator did nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugggh...
Either way, I like the idea of referral commisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugggh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugggh...
If the original work wasn't valuable, it would not have been bought in the first place. They are paid what it is worth at the time.
I am a programmer, and many people use the stuff I create and may use it for years in the future (future hasn't happened yet, hard to tell).
I do not demand such stupid rights as this.
I am paid once for my time. The time used to create the object. After that it is out of my hands. Simple. My business model is sustainable. And I actually know how to use a bank or any other form of saving money, unlike what seems more and more like most content creators around the world. I expect no continuing income for work I did years ago.
I actually see this as an incentive for artists in Austrailia to create LESS art. Now they know they can create less, and they will get more money later on because of these BS "royalties".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugggh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugggh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do I get in on this deal?
I mean, some of us in other professional fields might like to continue to get paid for work we did years after we did it.
"That's right, $70 now to fix the computer, plus $1/day for as long as what I fixed doesn't break."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep, attempting to sell your copy of a Midnight Oil CD would be silly. Asinine is also fitting. A waste of time also comes to mind. Because, really who would buy even a used Midnight Oil CD?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For that matter, why doesn't Campbell's get paid when the soup painting gets sold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Serge, let me explain how this works. If you believe I have stated something incorrectly, then rather than just declaring it, you actually are supposed to explain *what* I got wrong and *why* it is wrong, so that I can either correct the mistake, or respond if I believe you are wrong.
Otherwise, we will simply conclude that I have no mischaracterized it at all, but that you just don't like what I have said.
written by someone who toutes basic first-year microeconomics as revelation (prices tend towards marginal cost? rilly rilly?)
Actually, I have never (not once) suggested that this is a "revelation." In fact, I have pointed out, time and time again, that this is just applying very basic economics to the issue in order to explain it. You can also apply much more complicated higher level economics to the problem, but that's a separate issue.
But for you to accuse me of claiming that price tending towards marginal cost is a "revelation," is simply incorrect. I have repeatedly stated that this is fundamental basic 1st year econ.
who tops it off with the conclusion that the arts minister in question has show himself to be an economics illiterate.
Again, if you believe Garrett's scheme is economically sensible, you would then be asked to actually show why.
You have chosen not to, and instead just thrown (incorrect) insults towards me.
The obvious conclusion, unless you respond with more detail, is to conclude that you do not actually have a basis for your statements here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economics of Art
I don't know of any artist who creates according to the laws of supply and demand. It is a deeper calling that has nothing to do with making a profit or getting rich.
The really valuable pieces don't become so until after the artist dies anyway. Who gets the royalty then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics of Art
Ever heard of commissioned works?
A person, organization or business wants a painting, sculpture, etc (aka demand). An artist offers to create the work for some fee (aka supply).
Supply and demand at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics of Art
Well, they're starting to.
"... and that art collectors consume paintings like pork bellies."
That part is spot-on for the big spenders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
works of art will have no value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: works of art will have no value
OK, that's funny. But now that I think about it, I've seen others (usually musicians) do similar end-runs (Buy my ten dollar sticker, get this cd with uncleared samples for FREE!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Welfare System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point
You'll understand if I'm not terribly supportive of laws making sure dead people get paid while I'm having trouble covering bills for living folks.
I find the entire concept of "royalty" repugnant. Do your job. Get paid. Bug off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a lifeguard and I save lives. Perhaps I should get a percentage of a would-be drowner's income for every day after the day I saved their life. After all, they wouldn't be here if I hadn't saved them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I'm from Australia, and that is probably why I'm the only one here that seems to understand this law. Yes, it may seem stupid at first glance, but the idea is that creators of 'fine art' are entitled to royalties because their creations are 'one-off' and hence in the future, their name can assist with a sale.
Here's an example. I'm a painter (not really), and I create a painting that I sell at an art fair for say, $100 (quality of the painting aside). In 10 years I become the most famous painter in the world and someone sells that same photo for $1 million. The painting hasn't changed, but someone has just made a profit of $9,999,900 purely off my name. Is that fair? Would you like it if someone went around making large sums of money off your name?
Do you all get it now? Or is that too much for you gun toting hicks to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, if you got famous, wouldn't it mean that your earning potential is higher now?
If there is a sale that generate headline, you might get more exposure? Maybe it is that royalty fee would actually lower the sale of artwork and thus less potential to earn in the future.
Not everything is a zero-sum game, yo!
In a way this sound like a lot like anti-gouging law or the minimum wage law in the USA.
Sound good and is intended to protect the average Joe Sixpack, but actually make the situation worse.
For example, I can't force employers who discriminate to pay a price for not hiring me through more expensive employees.
Or after hurricane, merchants can't raise price which will preserve gas and other essential supplies. If they do, they get punished and presumably their supply confiscated and stored in a government warehouse undistributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can safely say that none of you dimwitted yanky dickheads have a clue.
Damn straight. We don't let things like that stop us from talking, though...
I create a painting that I sell at an art fair for say, $100 (quality of the painting aside). In 10 years I become the most famous painter in the world and someone sells that same [painting] for $1 million. The painting hasn't changed, but someone has just made a profit of $9,999,900 purely off my name. Is that fair?
Hells yeah it is. You want to know why? That purchaser bought from you while you were "nobody". He presumably got a quality product for a fair price - roughly the same price he'd still pay some "anybody" for a similar quality work. That you have become a rockstar with an inflated ego in the meantime does not undo that original, fair, transaction.
You became a rockstar painter, incidentally, because folks like that original purchaser took enough of a liking to your work to buy it in the first place. Say he never spent that $100 and 10 years on you're still nobody, and somebody else got your rockstar shot from his hundred bucks. Is that fair to you? To the other artist?
Life is like that. You appreciate those early purchasers. It's called "knowing your roots". That grit is the essence of life, life is the essence of art.
And, presumably, in those 10 years, while becoming a rockstar, you've been selling subsequent paintings for ever-increasing sums of money. Your ego is being sufficiently compensated for your fame. There's just no justifiable reason to go back and mug your earliest fans.
Do you all get it now? Or is that too much for you gun toting hicks to understand?
Bang bang, baby!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(sorry, I tried to resist, but I just can't)
I sell for $100
Yah...
someone sells that same for $1 million
Yah...
just made a profit of $9,999,900
Yah.... no. Really? Goddamn, I want in on that sale...
You know what they teach dimwitted yankee dickheads?
Math ;-D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Math ;-D
That's too funny !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rule # 1 when you have no argument: insult the people you're going to pretend to be smarter than.
Here's an example. I'm a painter (not really), and I create a painting that I sell at an art fair for say, $100 (quality of the painting aside).
Good for you. You made a deal for what you believed was the fair value of the paining at the time. The buyer took a risk that the price would increase.
In 10 years I become the most famous painter in the world and someone sells that same photo for $1 million.
Good for him. His risk paid off. What's the problem?
The painting hasn't changed, but someone has just made a profit of $9,999,900 purely off my name.
This is simply wrong. It wasn't *purely* off of your name. It was the RISK that the guy took on you in buying your painting in the first place. For all he knows it could have been worth $0 10 years later. At that point, if he came back and demanded his $100 from you, by your reasoning, you should give it to him.
Is that fair?
Indeed. It's quite fair. Those were all fair transactions, and as others noted, with such a sale, your new works must be in high demand so you should be able to sell them for much more as well -- and keep all those profits. It's win-win.
Would you like it if someone went around making large sums of money off your name?
Again, you ignore the other party here and the risk that he took on you. And you ignore the flip side, that the investment loses value.
Do you all get it now? Or is that too much for you gun toting hicks to understand?
I understand that you might want to learn some basic economics. Am I missing something else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insulting us
Yes, that is 100% fair that they make such a large profit. You wouldn't have been famous if you had NOT sold the paintings that you sold at lower prices, and any painting you sell after getting famous will sell for a suitably inflated price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, Art work leases, with rights to sublet, for 100 years, or until certain contingencies occur, at which point the title vests in the lessee. However, since it has not been "sold."
Or "Art Trusts" which own a collection of works, and people bid on the right to display this art. And further transfers go through the trust, so that it is never actually sold.
Or Forieg trusts owned by austrialians to actually buy and sell the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will just encourage export
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at this way:
You sell a dude a painting for $100. Ten years later, He becomes a rockstar, celebrated the world over, while you are in the dumps, probably painting houses. Suddenly rockstar announces to the whole wide world your painting was the one that inspired him to write all those great songs that made him an icon. Would you go and demand your "fair share" of his profits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As has been pointed out games companies are already trying, and didn't a record company get kicked out of court recently for asking for something similar? I'm sure it was reported here on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that the one you are asking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this.
How about I have a sales contract that says that for X number of years that I get 5% of the gain on any resales?
Now would that be acceptable to you (Mike)?
Now what is the difference between that and a law? Once a law is in place everyone buying art knows the terms going forward and it is reasonable to think that the market would take this into account.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this.
That's a voluntary agreement between buyer and seller.
Now what is the difference between that and a law?
The law would forceably put that clause into everyone's contract. What if I, as an artist, don't want it? What if I, as an artist, recognize that it depresses the market for my art?
Once a law is in place everyone buying art knows the terms going forward and it is reasonable to think that the market would take this into account.
Yes, but in what way? It would depress and shrink the overall market for art by effectively adding a tax. So, your basic economics would make it quite clear that this is not an optimal solution, but a significantly suboptimal one. Of course people would take it into account, but in doing so they would be shrinking the market for art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this.
Hey, there, slime. Welcome back.
Lets say that I am a struggling artist
Fine. Let's say that.
How about I have a sales contract that says that for X number of years that I get 5% of the gain on any resales? [...] Now what is the difference between that and a law?
The contract is negotiated. The law is compulsory. You already know that.
What compelling reason do you propose to offer during that contract negotiation that anybody should agree to that? Assuming I've paid a fair price for the work, why is it any business of yours at all what happens to it afterwards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
australia specific
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you want me to listen to you
It's "WHOM I saw in concert..." (object not subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For "whom" the bell tolls
“Whom” has been dying an agonizing death for decades
Don't be a prat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
resale royalty
http://www.dacs.org.uk/index.php?m=7&s=7&c=64
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]