Australia The Latest To Look At Having Artists Paid Multiple Times For The Same Work
from the economic-illiteracy dept
We were just talking about how New Zealand was scrapping its plan for an artist resale right, when Michael Scott pointed us to the news (from last month) that Australia has just proposed an artist resale right. It's not clear how many times it needs to be explained that such things are bad for most artists before politicians will get it. The only artists such a "right" helps are those who are quite successful -- in other words, the ones least likely to need it. For new and upcoming artists, such a resale right creates quite a bit of harm. It acts as a disincentive for anyone to buy or sell their artwork, and limits the likelihood of their artwork becoming well known.The problem is that, thanks to the rise of the copyright lobby, people really do think that "creation = permanent ownership" at this point. If you're going to create a resale right for art, why not for everything else? If I build a house, why shouldn't I get a percentage of the transaction every time it's sold? The argument is the same as for a resale right for art. Keep applying the argument in other sectors and you realize how dumb it becomes. As part of my job, I use a Lenovo laptop. That laptop helps me make money -- and therefore, under this reasoning, shouldn't I pay a percentage of any profits I make back to Lenovo? Of course not. Why? Because I paid Lenovo originally for the laptop and that was a completed transaction. The fact that I then went on to create value with the laptop is for me to benefit from, not Lenovo. The same is true with someone buying a piece of artwork. They paid for that artwork, and the reward for investing in that artwork and recognizing its potential is that it helps to add value to the artwork, which they profit from when they resell it. The artist made their deal, just as Lenovo made its deal. To come back later and demand a piece of the profits for value added later makes no sense.
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, australia, copyright, right of first sale
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
With a house, you buy ALL rights, and you sell ALL rights. When you buy a laptop, you buy ALL the rights to the hardware, and then you can sell all the rights to the hardware later on.
When you buy music (or get it "FREE!") you obtain LIMITED use rights to a single copy. You don't own any rights beyond the right to enjoy the music. You were not granted resale rights. You don't the music outright, you have purchased the right to use and enjoy it YOURSELF.
Using your logic, I can rent an apartment and then sell the entire building to someone else. It's the mistake you keep making with music, thinking that you have bought ownership, when in fact you are buying at most physical media and a license to listen to the music yourself (and anyone who happens to be in your non-commercial space at the same time). You didn't purchase ownership of the song. Unique item versus licensed copy. It's not even in the same boat.
But hey, who am I to get in the way of a another rant. I am sure you can use this one on your next speaking engagement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music vs. a house
It makes no sense in any way you want to frame it against real goods. That is why music rapidly has no value. The music industry has failed to define an appropriate value for true ownership and full rights to resale. Harold- your argument is retarded.
I and many other people will never purchase a product I can never own or which the previous owner can dictate any new rules they deem needed to protect their changing interests. There is no theft when ownership can never be defined or established. If the music industry revokes my ownership and first right of sale on my CDs, they need to return all of my money throughout the years. I never signed a contract agreeing to those terms nor have I ever seen one defining ownership rights in any level of detail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:ranting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:ranting
His ranting reminds me of MLS. Whatever happened to that little turd anyway? Last I remember, he told Mike to stop wearing brown, stating "it wasn't his color". Has he been back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expression of an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WH
Ahhhh - wrong
The typical house purchase has not included mineral rights in many decades.
But dont let that stop you from having a good time trolling.
[ 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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
double dipping artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: double dipping artists
The best way to solve the problem is education and access to information. Might also solve a few other social problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: double dipping artists
What is stopping the aboriginals from travelling to the cities and selling their art directly to city people? Why can't they set up their own art galleries in the cities?
Besides, why should the "extra money" be shared with the artist? They were already paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concept of Ownership
Did they ever learn the hard way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this go both ways?
It's only fair if it's a two-way street...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Agree!
www.hahaistoleyourworkyouidiot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Agree!
hahaistoleyourworkyouidiot.com appears to be available.
Just in case you really want to register it, Smithsereens, I recommend
http://www.netsol.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Agree!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Agree!
www.hahaistoleyourworkyouidiot.com
Unfortunately, it looks like you're joking. But, clearly you are new around here, because I have always said that this is fine:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
So, yes, please feel free to go ahead and do so. You are correct that I am very pleased to contribute my work gratis. Thanks for appreciating my work so much that you would consider helping me to distribute it. That's really a fantastic compliment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
15 minutes of fame
But, your doing yourself a disservice if you don't visit http://www.Warhol.com ...
Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikes neverland economics
In the very same document they demonstrate how successful artists are NOT benefiting financially from their success as artists. You also conveniently ignore that similar royalty systems have been in place in Europe with none of the negative impacts you suggest.
The artists in question have a long history of exploitation. They largely live in extreme poverty in areas with no employment prospects and have nothing to sell but their artwork, which they do so cheaply through lack of choice. They have nothing to leave their children and so the cycle continues leaving the entire community in a perpetual state of poverty and depression. This is a positive move by the government to help these people help themselves rather than simply hand them welfare.
Your laptop analogy is ridiculously inappropriate. A physical laptop is a mass produced device, not a work of creativity. It would be fairer to compare the design of the laptop than the device itself. How fair would it be if you spent two years of your life designing the hardware for a laptop on your own dime, to then have Lenovo buy it for a pittance which you have to accept because you have no negotiable leverage? This is much closer to the real situation than your contorted logic. But let's not forget, in your ideal world the designer would have no rights to seek a return on the two year investment at all. Far from what you and your ignorant acolytes might believe, your ideal world is a paradise for the establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikes neverland economics
That print is now mine. It's value has tripled since I purchased it. If I sell it, why should he be entitled to a royalty when I paid his initial asking price?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikes neverland economics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikes neverland economics
What I'd like to know is why market forces haven't already fixed this problem if it is so severe?
If I were interested in buying art from aborigines (and were not on the other side of the world), and I knew others were buying for a ridiculously low sum - why wouldn't I offer significantly more than the competition and let the artist know when I would next be in the area so he is more likely to sell to me next time? That way I should get all the best pieces, a decent reputation and force my competitors to raise their game.
It seems to me that if there is something stopping this from happening (being threatened or killed while I'm miles away from civilisation springs to mind) then *that* is the problem that needs to solved here.
Or am I way off base?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's the difference between owning a house and owning a picture of the same house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WeirdHarry
Well, actually, if I own the house, I own the house. If I own a picture of the house I own the picture. I can sell either one without paying royalty to the builder or the architect.
There is clearly a difference between limited and unlimited supply. So the music argument doesn't really stand up to either the house or the painting (artwork).
I agree with Carlos. If I buy a painting and the artist gets a cut when I sell it for a profit, does the artist have to pay me when I sell it for a loss? Seems like a lot of artists would be losing money based on what I see at the flee martket.
Are aboriginal artists really exploited if they sell their artwork for what they think is a reasonable price? Are the aboriginees being prevented from going to the city to sell their artwork? Are they being forced into producing the art as slaves? Are people from the city prevented from going into the bush to find aboriginal artists and buying the artwork directly, thus giving the 'exploitor' competition?
If I find a valuable antique at a flee market and buy it at a bargain price, have I exploited the seller at the flee market when I sell the antique for a profit? Or have I expoited the original artist/producer when I sell the antique? It seems like the people getting exploited are the ones paying the high price for the artwork, but that's called 'free market' supply and demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Airspace rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not have the right to make copies and sell them, or to use it in ANY commercial way other than to resell it.
The artist retains the right to make prints/copies and sell them, to sell the image to a publisher for a book cover or a magazine article, the artist keeps all of these rights. Is the artist willing to share these other royalties that originated from the creation of the piece of work with me? Of course not.
All of the artists I know have told me that they make far more on these other rights than they ever do from the sale of the original piece of work.
If they are willing to pass a law requiring the artist to share 5% of these "other" profits with me the buyer of the art work making me a partner with the artist, who is now making money from something that I own then I suppose I could feel good about paying them 5% of any gain I might make from selling the original piece of work.
Imagine being sued by the estate of an artist because the painting Daddy made burned up with the house and now the family wants 5% of the insurance money.
Imagine an architect going to the second buyer of a home and demanding payment from them for the work that was done for the first owner.
The idea may have good intentions, however the execution of it can never be anything but flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike and Resale Royalty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]