Artists In The US Want To Get Paid Multiple Times For A Single Work
from the not-this-again dept
Another day, another plan to try to expand "intellectual property rights" into ridiculous arenas. We had thought that the idea of resales rights for artists was a complete non-starter in the US. Resales rights are a ridiculous concept, which effectively destroys the right of first sale and that harms artists but it is often pitched as being for the benefit of artists. The idea is that if you buy the work of an artist, and then later resell it, the artist gets a cut. Every time you resell the work... the artist gets a cut. The simplified and economically clueless rationale for this is that artists often sell their works cheaply when they're unknown, and then it's the collectors down the road who reap the benefits when that artist becomes famous.This may sound appealing, but it leaves out the much bigger picture. First, this punishes those who invest in young artists by making it more expensive and more difficult to ever resell their artwork. This also means that people will buy less artwork as an investment, because you've automatically cut out a significant chunk of any profit. Limiting the market for a new artist is not a way to help that artist. As for the story of the "poor artist" who gets cut out of the appreciation of his own work... that's also hogwash. Sure they may sell early pieces for less, but the fame does not preclude them from making new works, and charging appropriately for them based on their fame (some of which may have come about because of the risk that early buyers/supporters/patrons took).
Can you imagine if this expanded to other areas? What if you had to pay back the furniture builder when you sold your old sofa? Or the home developer when you sold your house (oops, someone's trying that, too).
The whole thing is a bizarre and counterproductive concept. In past years, we've seen both the UK and Australia look to set up resale rights. Australia eventually put in place a watered down version, which isn't quite as bad, but still has problems.
Anyway, after not hearing a peep about such an idea in the US in years... it appears that there's a new lobbying campaign for a resale right in the US. Of course, it's being pushed for by the Artists Rights' Society, the main copyright licensing agency for artists in the US. Realizing that art galleries have freaked out about this in the past, ARS is trying to get this approved by exempting art galleries from this, not realizing how much worse that actually makes this for artists and for individual patrons of the arts. Now galleries have a favored position regarding terms and individual patrons have to pay an extra tax.
It appears that ARS has hired Bruce Lehman to be the main lobbyist on this issue. Does that name ring a bell? Lehman is the guy who constructed the DMCA. A few years back, Lehman admitted that the DMCA had been a disaster and said that we'd be better off entering a "post-copyright era." Of course, he didn't take the blame himself, but rather blamed the recording industry execs for failing to get digital. He also seemed to think that the DMCA's overreach was a huge surprise, despite the fact that many, many critics brought it up at the time Lehman was pushing it -- and Lehman's response at the time was to threaten to "rip [the] throat out" of James Boyle, who had warned of problems of the DMCA. Lehman also sought to get Boyle denied tenure at the university he was teaching at for pointing out why the DMCA was a bad idea.
Given that history, I'm at a loss as to why he should be trusted when it comes to any form of new copyright-related policy.
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, bruce lehman, copyright, resale right
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why are you so anti-law, Mike?
[/Troll]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ;-P
I'm sorry, but I can't grade this trolling higher than a C-
You just didn't have me believing you had an irrational belief in your statement. Next time, try putting it forth as an indisputable fact--handed down from God to Reagan to Rush Limbaugh and finally to you. Ya got to really sell it.
Good effort though, I'm sure with practice your trolling will improve.
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(here, used to be that he'd be completely unemployable in such a role if the first one was such a disaster... but only if it was a disaster for the people who hired him to do it and/or the people who are looking at hiring him this time. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am an artist with a bunch of Vinyl,CD,and Cassette Tapes put out since 1978 released to public.
I do not want this to happen.It is out of control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenge
Then when he tries to escape we stitch him up like a kipper for violating the technical security parts of the DCMA.
Revenge is a dish best served cold (with beer and chips where possible)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
Oh wait. I'm going to hear more sophistry about how this is different. But it isn't. If content creators can get second, third, fourth etc sale money, they can charge less up front.
The fact is that the first-sale doctrine makes life difficult for book owners. THey've got to capitalize ALL of the costs. Students have to pay their own cash up front and then get some back at the end of the semester. The students have to come up with extra capital and we know how tough that can be for them.
I understand the idea behind the first sale doctrine, but it just gets in the way of innovative financing agreements.
The fact is that when content creators can spread the costs out fairly and evenly, everyone pays a small, fair amount. Piracy and first-sale issues are just some of the impediments.
But we know how you feel about innovation. Anything but free is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
Very nice!
Your trolling is the best I've seen all day.
Keep up the good work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
But they won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
Selling ad space = paying the creator multiple times for a single physical good?
Rest assured that discrepancy will not be overcome with subtlety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
Um. Wow. That's dumb. I'm not reselling anything. When we sell ads, we're selling *ATTENTION* and it's different attention each time.
Oh wait. I'm going to hear more sophistry about how this is different.
Reality isn't sophistry, bob.
The fact is that the first-sale doctrine makes life difficult for book owners.
You do realize that without the first sale doctrine, it would make life MUCH MORE DIFFICULT for book owners, in that the books they sell would be less valuable. A study a few years back showed that the fact that you could resell books was a major factor in people accepting the upfront sale price of a book. Take that away and people are less willing to buy books.
I understand the idea behind the first sale doctrine, but it just gets in the way of innovative financing agreements.
How? Nothing in the first sale doctrine says you cannot create innovative financing agreements? Why are you making stuff up?
But we know how you feel about innovation. Anything but free is bad.
Please point out where I said that. I never said that. In fact, I discuss how to MAKE MONEY all the time. I've also argued in places where "free" doesn't make sense. My whole point is understanding when free makes sense and when it doesn't.
Only an idiot would interpret that to mean "anything but free is bad."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
The great scam they had going, though, was that their particular market-- students-- didn't have a choice but to buy the books. And even with a captive market, they still bitch and whine about students selling their old books at the end of the semester, and did everything they could to get around it, usually by changing a few paragraphs and printing a 'new edition', thereby making the old books less valuable.
That's why text-book publishers have been quick to embrace the e-book concept. They think with DRM, they can do things like make textbooks 'expire' within a few months of purchase, so that not only can they not be resold, but the person who bought them can't even keep the book *themselves* to use in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
> doctrine, but it just gets in the way of
> innovative financing agreements.
And anything that gets in the way of Big Copy's money flow must be eradicated.
That about sum it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
What a nice way to say "screw the artist and the customer".
Hadn't had it put that way before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone (not even on a record label) invests $30,000 in the production, promotion, marketing, recording, mastering and distribution of an album.
Sorry, but they're gonna need to get paid more than once to come close to recouping that, unless you think they can sell one download for 30k.
You have an MBA, so I know this is just more of your transparent willful blindness to reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you don't think they market, promote, design, or prototype furniture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unlike a record album.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but few would invest that kind of money and expect to sell only one album.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
if you weren't joking, then obviously you don't have an MBA, or any common sense. Recouped on first sale? Every piece of furniture sold incurs "real" physical material costs, which you can't create for free... unlike virtual goods (movies, music etc.) that cost close to nothing to replicate after the initial development costs and can be packaged in virtually limitless ways.
Where do you think it's easier to recoup the money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not so with a record album.
Are you fucking dense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Step #1: Look for blatant put down of original premise without reason: "I don't agree with resell rights, but the furniture analogy is retarded."
Step #2: Look for the follow up bad analogy regarding physical good compared to digital media: "Someone (not even on a record label) invests $30,000 in the production, promotion, marketing, recording, mastering and distribution of an album.
Sorry, but they're gonna need to get paid more than once to come close to recouping that, unless you think they can sell one download for 30k."
Step #3: Find one of typically several level headed questions that should theoretically end the troll thread: "So you don't think they market, promote, design, or prototype furniture?"
Step #4: Watch the troll bury himself with his own answer: "Of course they do, and that cost is recouped after their first sale."
Step #5: Troll Gets called out for being a troll: "Ha ha ha ... you were joking, weren't you?
if you weren't joking, then obviously you don't have an MBA, or any common sense. Recouped on first sale? Every piece of furniture sold incurs "real" physical material costs, which you can't create for free... unlike virtual goods (movies, music etc.) that cost close to nothing to replicate after the initial development costs and can be packaged in virtually limitless ways."
Step #6 Watch troll implode and lash out all at once! Typically they provide some scenario that quite honestly wouldn't make sense in a world created by Syd and Marty Croft:
"No asshat, if desired, all the costs of producing a piece of furniture can be recouped after one sale.
Not so with a record album.
Are you fucking dense?"
(I always imagine their office/computer chair spinning at 78RPM while steam pours out their ears and their Mom's voice coming from upstairs "Honey, are you OK? Do you want me to make you a sandwich?")
Step #7 Starve the troll and move on. Unfortunately, I was unable to do this on this article, hence my reply. My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So IKEA can recoup the cost of design of a chair selling one chair for $14.99?
Wow!
Not to mention the costs of the store, transport, employees and so forth.
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/00155964
Can IKEA now claim they need to get paid for everything somebody bought from them and try to resell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's exactly the same for music, you can spend �30,000 on making an album, or you could spend �100.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have any idea how much and industrial designer cost today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is about paintings and sculptures, not music.
Furthermore are you honestly implying that there are not production, promotion, marketing and such costs on other goods?
Anyway, this article has absolutely nothing to do with musicians making money for each sale, so not even sure why you bring that up. In that case, they're doing it as a license.
If you want a better analogy involving recording artists, it would work like this: an artist signs to record label "A". Record label A is then sold to Record Label "b". If a resale right is in place, then the cost for Record Label B is much higher because they *ALSO* have to pay all the artists *again* because they've bought their copyrights in a second sale....
If you can't understand why the economics of that is prohibitive and harmful, I'm not sure we can explain much else to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> more than once
They do get paid more than once. They get paid for every copy of that album that gets sold.
If not enough copies are sold to make them money, well, that means they made a bad business decision and people just didn't like the music enough.
Their bad decisions do not justify requiring everyone who sells that CD down the road to kick in a tithe to the record company.
You seem to be operating from the basic assumption that every record company has a moral right to automatically make money on every investment they make. No one else in society has that right. Why should a record company or a painter or a movie studio be given investment insurance that none of the rest of us have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I destroy your logic, and you can't respond, but then you post a strawman instead? No one has argued the above. Because that's not what we've said at all.
What amazes me is how people don't bother to read what we write and then make up things they thought we said. And then they wonder why they're failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, but they're gonna need to get paid more than once to come close to recouping that, unless you think they can sell one download for 30k.
If that download came with all the rights that they had then yes - they could expect a sum of that magnitude.
[ 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:
[x] Anonymous Coward
[ ] Saying "I just don't see it" or equivalent
[x] Addressing Mike by has last name
[x] Mentioning rape or other sexual subject
[ ] Accusing MIke of saying something he has never said
[ ] Using the term "Freetard"
[ ] Implying that being critical of over-reaching intellectual property laws is the same as wanting no intellectual property laws
[x] Accusing Mike of hating and/or wanting to kill a person or group of people
[ ] Using a straw man like "Why are you anti-choice?"
[ ] Claiming to know something that you can't possibly know, IE someone's thoughts, intentions, or motives
[ ] Suggesting that it's a lost cause for people to try and communicate with their elected representatives
[ ] Claiming that the only reason someone could be critical of intellectual property laws is that they "want free stuff"
Summary: You can do better. I hope to be able to write "has made significant improvement!" on your next score-card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, Nazi's.
[/I think I got 'em all]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to thank AC's everywhere for the inspiration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now that's what I call bringing your A-game. Nicely done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Changing laws are really easy to do. All one needs is a legislative body, for example the United States Congress, and a political class that is willing to work together to affect the needed change in order to benefit everyone.
See: Debt Ceiling debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow. So all the time I spend helping artists make more money? All the time I spend celebrating artists who embrace new business models to make tons of money?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml
Read that and then tell me I hate artists trying to earn a living. Are you serious? Is that the best you can come up with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike, let's face it, you're a rooster who's claiming credit for the dawn, and it's absolutely hilarious to see you do it with such ignorant pride. Please, keep it up, I love to watch pseudo-intellectuals wallow in their own satisfaction; it's quite enjoyable, you should try it by looking in a mirror.
But let's get to the facts, according to multiple stat compilers, TD getting about 25k unique global visitors a day. Considering there's over 300 million people in the US alone, you'd better start taking your own advice. You're traffic is stagnant, just like you're old, tired ideas that you tout as new and innovative.
/nailed it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed... best one yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The setup as described would be perfectly legal today, although complicated by a lack of standard procedures and such. It might also create some issues regarding things like insurance and inheritance taxes, example. So getting a formal legal description and outline would be perhaps the easiest way to get things done.
The artist also wouldn't get "paid more than once" for the same work, as selling the work under restricted terms (not an outright sale) would likely generate less money up front. So the artist would get paid their full amount over time, perhaps more, as they might give up 20% now, but those resale rights might generate more in the long run.
There is no indication that the artist would get paided fully twice for the same work, is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about your carpenter having a lease on the things he did inside your home, how about a mechanic having a lease on the work he has done in your car, how about car manufacturers having a lease on your car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We also do many things on credit, which effectively is a lower payment now, and payments later, payments of which come due when the good is actually sold to another party.
Not everything outside of Mom's basement is so straightforward. It's something you learn after 9th grade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But you can't force others to lease or rent anything can you stupid f.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody pay the original builder of anything why should some stupid artists have that power?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is nothing stopping artists from doing this right now.
What this bill will do, is make anything but a "lease" illegal.
[ 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:
I.E 'Paid fully twice' is exactly what happens, for DEAD artists.
Effectively the scheme is a sort of inheritance/wealth tax.
The only artists who really benefit are those who sold lots of art decades ago and are now mostly dead.
for living artists it simply reduces the offering prices/demand for new art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mostly dead, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Early adopters, or fans you might say, of a particular artist are the who are responsible driving the commercial value of the art by buying it in the first place. The fans validate the work and its monetary value, and that is a great contribution.
Why punish that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There will need to be such a society to keep track of ownership and to dole out money. The collection society will take its huge cut to pay the salaries of its employees. Of course smaller less successful artists will not see any money at all, i.e., the vast majority of artists.
This is just a huge scam for some rich and connected people to sit back and collect money while doing absolutely nothing. Congress will jump right on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, that's a great idea. Who wants to get in on the ground-floor with me on this?
I even have a snappy official sounding name for it.
The
Collection of
Artist
Dues
Society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
art
LOBBYISTS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Software Engineer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Software Engineer?
Software is neither engineered nor "artisted", but hewn forth from the raw chaos of the cosmos and hammered into logical form with intellectual heat and hammer and anvil--it is a craft.
A programmer is a logic-smith and is as much an artist and engineer as his spiritual predecessor the blacksmith; but ultimately he is practicing a craft, the result being something which has been assembled with care--a universal oddity in that it is a hand-forged singular creation which can then be copied nigh infinite times.
Never forget--you carry on the tradition first passed down from the Gods of old to Hammurabi; the ancient tradition of mastering the one and the zero.
Wield it with care, wield it with pride.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Software Engineer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting statistic
Can anyone confirm this? I've used the ol' Googler, without joy.
If true, it's a pretty damning statistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting statistic
So it wouldn't surprise me if such a small number of people got most of the money. Especially since, if I understand it correctly, only Swedish artists gets paid in Sweden. Would think the same applies in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art as an investment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Art as an investment
If you purchase it outright, then you own it and there would be no issue. There isn't any simple legal method to go back and slap an "artist tax" on something you have already paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Art as an investment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
International IP right Equalization
(Why doesn't equalization ever work the other way?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's already the law in California
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's already the law in California
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm... duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's a tax question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Resale Right in Europe
The UK (via the EU, via France) already has a Resale Right. However, so far it has been confined to limited-edition artwork sold in auctions. The particularly scary part is that the money is taken by the auction house automatically, (rather than by the author) and cannot be waived or circumvented. [I wrote something about this a while back, when I stumbled across it.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummm... no, they buy all the other Null Corporation branded material and products because he connects with fans. They download his music for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can already do that - Don't need a new law.
The company issuing stock ONLY makes money (directly) on the initial sale of the stock. All the people reselling it in no (direct) way benefit the company. However, the stock increasing (exactly) causes the value of the company to increase, which has all sorts of benefits that can be capitalized on.
Anyway, what people are purchasing is an artifact, not art. It doesn't matter who created it, why, or what process. And artifact has a market value. And an owner.
If artists want to loan their artifacts, they are currently at liberty to do that. You could easily build a business based on "artifact loaning" under current law. There are companies that do that for other "scarce" artifacts. Or for people who do not have the money to buy. I think most people will notice that the preference of consumers is to outright *own* something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If second, third, and fourth sale royalties are what they want
Wait, there is a new business!! An art gallery at the funeral home. While people are grieving, they might be more willing to pay higher prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If second, third, and fourth sale royalties are what they want
No, that's what's needed today. If this law were passed, you would be violating the law to not pay back to the artist when you resell the work and the artist could sue you for damages. No contract necessary.
I assume this would result in a new black market for art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If second, third, and fourth sale royalties are what they want
In other words iF you are going to buy art wait until after they are long dead (If at all). If the sales stop maybe they will learn the ridiculousness of what they are asking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paint a beautiful landscape? You own $50 to the parks department for every painting you sell.
Record a song about Vietnam? Half the profit on every record sale is taxed and goes to the DOD.
On second though, maybe this whole IP concept is dumb and we should stick with "you bought it you own it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would actually mena that whenever the artist spends some of the money you paid then you would get a cut - and whenever the person that took the money spent it you would get a cut - and so on - after all a banknote is an artwork isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet they'll still claim to be free martketers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a Australian visual artist. Resale royalties are, for all but a handful of artists who have sold a lot of artworks in the FIRST place, a useless/crap/harmful idea for artists. It is nothing more than a compulsory right to management fees for the collection societies that endlessly lobby for it. And extra supplementary payments to those artists already most favored by the market.
It is also repeatedly claimed by the lobbyists for these schemes that 'over 50 countries worldwide have already adopted the scheme'. The EU's official Europa website on this matter states that as of May this year, no non-EU country has adopted a scheme that meets EU standards.
See: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/resale-right/resale-right_en.htm
The advocates are mired in moral hazard, conflict of interest and are shameless liars.
I ask you all to read our post on Professor Jeremy Phillips 1709 blog
http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artist-resale-royalty-harmonisation-and.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How in the world..
Dumb idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But one of the Anonymous Cowards told me . . .
We were talking about copyright work for hire. I was arguing that there should not be any work for hire. The rights stop at the artist.
The AC told me that the one investing in the creation and taking risks should get the reward.
So here, I think, the collector who invests in collecting the work of unknown artists should reap the reward if that artist becomes famous.
The artist's own fame will enable him to get reward for further works he creates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]