Art Directory

• Browse Art Listings

Royalty drives market away

Droit de suite is being introduced here in Europe because big government here - like big government everywhere - seems to assume that something like this comes at zero extra cost, which it obviously does not. It will involve a lot of administration, it is another burden on the private sector, and will drive the market away.

Getting in on the money

As in all other aspects of our capitalist society, it is the middle man (or woman) who makes the real money. Not the farmers, not the people who make the cars, not the designers, architects, and other doers - but the people who buy and sell and sell again. I for one am all for some kind of continuing interest in what one has created. And in our society that interest is money.

Put patrons on top?

It's all well and good to keep the playing field of writers, artists and jewelers on

Maya Mudra graphite drawing  click image to enlarge

the same footing, but why elevate the collector to the extent that you do? Who is to say that the monetary and reputational benefit I receive when a collector buys my work is any less than the personal benefit the collector receives having the opportunity to live with my work? Fine if that collector makes a profit when he sells my work, or is lauded by a museum when he donates it, but "put the patrons on top"? This self-deprecation doesn't help any of us and only perpetuates the starving artist image - very unbecoming for a civilized culture. And how much of that "expectation of further investment growth" relies on the artist remaining disciplined, inspired, curious, inventive, and determined to continue creating in a world that puts the patrons on top?

Ongoing contracts for graphic design

This practice comes more from the graphic design and illustration business, where it is

Jessica original drawing  click image to enlarge

common to sell a design for a specific purpose and print run. The Graphic Design Guild has lobbied long and hard to enforce contracts and copyrights for designers. I believe this is fair and equal for this business, but I agree that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to enforce this with fine art. Most collectors are not in the business of buying a piece of artwork with the intention of reselling for profit. It does happen, but I don't believe it is the norm. It is (as you stated) extremely difficult to police the design business and I am sure it would be even more difficult in the fine art arena, especially in the States.

Value in intellectual property

Calling droit de suite a "kickback" connotes a certain bias against it to begin with. I.D. (intellectual property) is big these days. Copyrights have been extended by the congress to decades, and any musician who creates anything of popular interest can expect to profit (unless robbed by the music industry execs) for years, same for filmmakers. Why should artists not be treated similarly? The term "starving artist" has a certain quaint nostalgic ring to it, but living in that mode is not conducive to furthering the creative process. Perhaps we should start a discussion on whether or not the artist "owns" his image, whether or not he/she "owns" the canvas upon which it is hosted.

Contract diminishes spiritual nature

Back in the '70s, I sold a few works under the Artist's Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement, which kicked back a 6% of the resale price's profit to me. Unfortunately I sold it to people who had no intention of ever reselling the works. (They fulfilled their intention, alas.) I found only a few potential buyers who balked at the deal. The reasons they gave are the ones you mention in your Twice Weekly Letter. But the best advice I got was from U.S. Senator Carl Levin and Barbara, his wife and a contract attorney. They explained that, to people like themselves, art is something removed from the banality of everyday life. Buying an artwork is a way they can participate in that special realm. The acquired artwork becomes a piece of their life that is not constrained by such considerations as reality, logic, or finance. Attaching a contract to an artwork ties it to the material world and diminishes its spiritual nature. They led me to realize, years later, that there is no real connection between art and money. In the west, art entered the commercial arena during the Renaissance. The creation of most art throughout human history was motivated by something other than money. Needless to say, I stopped using the contract.

Artists deserving of fair share

I must say I was surprised and disappointed by your views expressed. Personally I think

Portrait of the artist as an Ent Warrior acrylic painting  click image to enlarge

it's only fair that artists get a small return from any resale of their artwork. I also think that whenever I sell a piece of work, it is still my work regardless of whether I actually own it. It's my intellectual property. Three percent on resale is hardly unfair and this is inline with the European art scene. Collectors would be nothing without the artists. They could not exist without the artist, but we could survive without them. I have continued to paint for years without collectors. Usually I make very little from exhibitions I participate in. I prefer to maintain my integrity. If, however, a collector comes along and wishes to sell the work, then I think I deserve some small part of the money that is made.

Safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that artworks are not filtered to America for resale. How this could be done I don't know but every effort should be made. If, as you say, many countries are experiencing a growing art market, then artists should have a fair share of any work sold. This bill will also encourage younger artists to keep going, knowing that sometime down the track they will receive a small part of later resales.

Craziness in music industry

I agree with you that artists have already been paid in the original sale of their

Serendipity 4 watercolor painting  click image to enlarge

work. If collectors wish to sell later for a profit, that's the collector's prerogative. Droit de suite reminds me of the nonsense going on in the music industry here in Australia. An organization has been set up specifically to police the sale and usage of music. Music is written and recorded by the artist, produced by the record company and then sold on CD through music stores. Those same stores who sell the CDs and promote the artists must then pay a royalty to this organization... allowing them to play the music in their store... to pass back to the artist. This also goes for any business, shop, restaurant, broadcast, event, or even website that wants to publicly play the music they have already purchased. All must pay a yearly license fee and then record their usage of the music (including how many times played, etc.) and send quarterly reports of this usage to the organization for distribution of royalties to the original artists (after they have skimmed off their fee of course!). I may be talking music here and not art... but it has crossed my mind that art could just as easily go the way of music into such craziness. What comes first... the chicken or the egg?

Are painters lesser persons?

Why do you feel that it is wrong that an artist should share some of the profits of the

Cheese, ham and wine original painting  click image to enlarge

sale of his or her artwork? Take for instance your local bank. They charge you for the privilege of holding your account plus they use your money to make further investments. They are quite happy to give you a small percentage back from their net profits because without your investment they couldn't function. In the music industry, recording artists receive royalties from their music. Authors receive royalties from their books, so why not a painter or sculptor for his or her creative work? Are they a lesser person than a singer or a musician or an author? Is their work so insignificant that it has a lesser value? You mention the collector as if he is some kind of god. He or she is a collector for one of two reasons: his or her personal taste or what they see as an investment for their money - just like choosing a bank or buying shares on the stock market for financial gain. So if they have bought it for financial gain, then why not share a small part of that with the artist? As you yourself have said many times, artists spend a lot of time honing their skills and perfecting their art, also searching for a style that will make their work acceptable, which means lots of rejection and self-sacrifice, so when they finally achieve that, surely they should reap the rewards.

Copyright paintings

Having shot films around the world for International NGOs, foundations and the like

NY Pilot Schooner #7 oil painting  click image to enlarge

for years - the film business isn't all glamour - Droit de suite has occurred to me. I'd do a great job for a client, perhaps too good a job and they'd use the footage over and over again year after year and I got bupkis (that's Yiddish for goat droppings). It's called Vulture Video or refried beans. A multitude of indignities and abuse happen in the art world, such as dealers selling a work at a discount without your permission and passing along 50% of the discount to me (expletive deleted) to name one. Unfortunately, while I like the idea of droit de suite, the administrative costs of making it a workable scheme don't make economic sense. The only alternative is to copyright the painting and have a sales contract that states that the artist retains all copyrights. One can sell the painting, but retain all copyrights for prints, books, etc. I've worked that way for years. If a buyer raises objections, I tell them that if my prints of the painting are a success, the value of the original goes way up, so they're winners, too.

Resale fees same as photocopy fees

The royalty system bears some thought. The recent "thefts" could be thought of in the same light as the reselling of the image/work itself. If we are not entitled to a portion of the resale fees of the original, why are we entitled to the resale fees of copies, digital or painted? If we feel we are entitled to the resale fees of photocopies or painted copies of our image, why would we not feel that we are entitled to a resale fee on the original work? How are these different?

California royalty law

The state of California has had this law on the books for many years. You are right,

In My Dreams original sculpture  click image to enlarge

there is no way to enforce it, unless you really make it big time. Obviously there are those who feel that starving artists, who sold cheap early in their career just to get by, should be compensated if they later become well known. As a means of educating collectors, I include this notice with the receipt for any major sale.

California law also feeds Arts Council

California's resale royalty law of a 5% return upon resale to the artist, provides also

Just Before... oil painting  click image to enlarge

for the deceased artist. That amount, theoretically, goes to the California Arts Council. I just received a check from a resale, and it felt totally appropriate. This is one of the rare times I disagree with you.

(RG note) Thanks Mira. Also, this law is a convenient way to find out if one is still alive. For those who wish to know more about the California law they can go here.

Artist payment in Brazilian law

Concerning the droit de suite, I would like to inform you that it is legal in Brazil according to the "Law of Rights of Authors" (Federal Law nr. 9,610/1998). Article 38 - (My translation follows)

"The author has the right, unrenounceable and untransferable, of receiving, at the less, five per cent on the increase of the price eventually realised in every reselling of the work of art or manuscript, under the condition that they were originals. If at the moment of the reselling , if the author does not receive the payment, the seller is considered as the depositary of the amount due, except in the case that the sale was realized by auction, then the auctioneer will be considered the depositary."

Private 15% solution

As a dealer I have an arrangement like droit de suite at my two galleries. It is called "Transfer of sale agreement." The purchaser signs that section of the Bill of Sale saying that he/she, upon selling the work and making a profit, will give the artist 15%. Just like giving a tip to anyone in the service industry or whatever. Currently it is based on trust. However, if the sale is not reported and a profit is made, the artist or their heirs will hear about it eventually through other sales at auction houses, etc.

What about the soul?

"It is essential that the painter should develop not only his eyes, but also his soul,

Aperio original painting  click image to enlarge

so that it too may be capable of weighing colors in balance…" (Wassily Kandinsky)

Much of what you articulated in your letter concerns cultivating the soul, not just the next quick buck. Anticipating that I would feel as though I had "made it" while awaiting receipt of my first check, I was surprised to learn how much more important and validating it was to see that certain look in people's eyes. The palpable joy displayed on people's faces when they fall in love with one of my paintings is far more satisfying than money. Naturally, everyone paints for different reasons and everyone has their own monetary goals, but worrying about getting those few extra dollars, when a painting infrequently re-sells, seems to be a mindset capable of stomping the soul out of one's creativity… if not his humanity.

Two way street for artists?

A Patron is supporting you by buying your work... period... regardless of where you are in your career. If, down the road, they re-sell to someone else for more money... that just proves how clever they were to buy your work in the first place! I'd be doing a happy dance for them... (and for me)… not sticking my hand out asking for a cut. Now what happens if they sell it for a loss? Will they be coming back to the artist to get some of their investment back? Yikes!