New Zealand Scraps Plan To Get Artists Paid Multiple Times For A Single Piece Of Work

from the getting-paid-multiple-times dept

Tue, Mar 10th 2009 4:36pm — Mike Masnick

We've never quite understood the reasoning employed in a few different countries to allow artists to get paid every time their artwork is sold. The given reason is usually that if the artwork becomes valuable at a later date, the artist should get a piece of that, but that doesn't make much sense. Once the artist becomes famous than all of his or her new works will also command a much higher premium. All such a "resale right" does is make it that much more expensive to buy and sell art, since you now have to pay a fraction of every transaction back to the artist. This actually harms the artists, because it makes people less willing to buy and sell their artwork. It basically punishes those who actually believe in an artist and buy their early works. It's been shown that such a resale right harms up-and-coming artists (it makes it more expensive to buy their works), and really only tends to help the super successful artists (i.e., those who are already earning plenty from their artwork).

Lawrence D'Oliveiro alerts us to the good news that New Zealand has decided to scrap such a plan. There's not a full explanation for why the plan was scrapped, but it has economically ignorant artists complaining that it's just not fair and it means New Zealand "doesn't value its artists." Hopefully someone will explain to them that making it more expensive for their artwork to be sold means that they'll be selling a lot less artwork -- and that doesn't seem very "valuable" at all.

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: artist resale rights, artists, copyright, new zealand, right of first sale

8 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:58pm

More Background
Found a bunch more items at the NZ Herald website discussing this plan. It was first mooted by the Labour Government back in 2007:
- initial report
- Brian Rudman opinion column against the idea:
  It would be more in the spirit of the ministry's original premise that everyone's in it for the money, that in such circumstances, the artist compensate the original buyer for his or her losses and plead with them not to alert the Commerce Commission. For obviously the artist ripped off the buyer with the original inflated sale price.
- Editorial in favour.
- academic critique which tries to be neutral.
- piece by the Minister concerned, in favour, naturally.
- piece by a sculptor, pointing out that the scheme seems to have worked well in Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jezsik, 10 Mar 2009 @ 8:50pm

Does New Zealand value skilled workers?
If so, every single thing created by skilled workers in New Zealand, if resold, should provide a cut back to the orginal people who created it.

If an architect creates a nice house design, shouldn't they get a cut when the house is resold? Therefor too should the carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, etc.

Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MadJo (profile), 11 Mar 2009 @ 1:16am
  
  Re: Does New Zealand value skilled workers?
  you're totally reusing my words, I demand a cut from whatever it is that you are making plus damages.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trussia, 11 Mar 2009 @ 5:24am

Where's the evidence?
What evidence is there to demonstrate that the Right has damaged up and coming artists? The law has been in place in the UK for three years now. Artists at all stages of their careers are benefitting and there has been no credible evidence to suggest it has damaged the trade, or artists, in any way. An artist's success is not always reflected by an increase in the primary sales of their work as often collectors seek after those works which first brought the artist into the public eye and which have long left the possession of the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John (profile), 11 Mar 2009 @ 6:42am

Everyone should get a cut
If they want a cut of the resale price then fine. But they should also have to give a portion of that to the producers of what the materials they used, i.e. the company that made the canvas, brushes, paint, paper, stone, clay, metal, etc. Those people and companies should get their fair share as well and shouldn't be getting ripped off by the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2009 @ 7:27am

In the US, California has been at the forefront of efforts such as this. To wit: California Civil Code Section 986.

Given the subject matter covered by California law, it is refreshing to note that in all likelihood neither the RIAA nor the MPAA were behind the legislation's enactment into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChrisB (profile), 11 Mar 2009 @ 7:42am

"... to allow artists to get paid every time their artwork is sold."

Of course, the flip side is artist would have to pay if their art was ever sold at a loss. Life isn't a ratchet; you can't expect to have a perpetual upside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2009 @ 9:16am

Can't wait for the first lawsuit from an artist involving lost/destroyed art, which thereby "stole" the artist's future earning.

You know it will happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]