Visual Arts Resale Royalty Scheme - about time!
NAVA (The National Association for the Visual Arts Limited) has been working for a considerable length of time on lobbying the current and preceding Australian governments to introduce an artists resale royalty scheme. This would see artists, or the estates of deceased artists, receiving a royalty payment when their artwork is resold. With the exception of one gallery that I know of in Australia (although there may be more that I don't know about) an artist does not receive payment for sales after the initial sale of an artwork. So if an artist makes and sells a painting for $2,500 initially, and 20 years later that same painting is resold for $25,000 (or $250,000!) the artist currently receives no benefit from the increase in value of their artwork.
Peter Garrett, Minister for the Arts (amoungst other things), will introduce legislation into Parliament later this year to make the Resale Royalty Scheme law by mid 2009. You can read a fact sheet about the scheme by clicking on the hyperlink above. In a nutshell, for artworks sold for more than $1000 the new scheme will pay 5% of the sale price of the artwork to the artist, or his/her heirs for 70 years after the artist's death, for artworks that are acquired after the introduction of the new law.
As with any new legislation, there are positions both for and against it. From NAVA's perspective the legislation is watered down from the ideal. Some artists are against the legislation, saying that it will only benefit a very tiny proportion of the artist community - those whose works sell for more than $1000, and the proposed legislation won't benefit artists whose work has been acquired before the law is implemented. There aren't many artists making a living from their artwork.
And you can imagine that this legislation is fairly unpopular with the auction houses, most art galleries and many art collectors. Why, because it will reduce their profit when selling the artworks covered by this legislation. That's understandable as no one likes losing money - but hardly a valid reason for not introducing it. After all, many collectors buy art for its appreciating value, although some actually do like what they buy.
By implementing this scheme, Australia will join 49 other countries that acknowledge a resale royalty right for visual artists.
Well done NAVA!
Peter Garrett, Minister for the Arts (amoungst other things), will introduce legislation into Parliament later this year to make the Resale Royalty Scheme law by mid 2009. You can read a fact sheet about the scheme by clicking on the hyperlink above. In a nutshell, for artworks sold for more than $1000 the new scheme will pay 5% of the sale price of the artwork to the artist, or his/her heirs for 70 years after the artist's death, for artworks that are acquired after the introduction of the new law.
As with any new legislation, there are positions both for and against it. From NAVA's perspective the legislation is watered down from the ideal. Some artists are against the legislation, saying that it will only benefit a very tiny proportion of the artist community - those whose works sell for more than $1000, and the proposed legislation won't benefit artists whose work has been acquired before the law is implemented. There aren't many artists making a living from their artwork.
And you can imagine that this legislation is fairly unpopular with the auction houses, most art galleries and many art collectors. Why, because it will reduce their profit when selling the artworks covered by this legislation. That's understandable as no one likes losing money - but hardly a valid reason for not introducing it. After all, many collectors buy art for its appreciating value, although some actually do like what they buy.
By implementing this scheme, Australia will join 49 other countries that acknowledge a resale royalty right for visual artists.
Well done NAVA!
posted by Rick's Rambles at 9:59 am
1 Comments:
Hi Rick. I recently came across your post.
We have a similar law in California (the Resale Royalties Act of 1976) and I suspect your law may be modeled after ours since the terms are similar.
I recently started a company (SecuritizedArts.com) to deal with the enforcement of the RRA for artists, based on a thesis I wrote in public policy school. I've just started up, so I need feedback and would love your opinion of the site, idea, etc.
If what I'm doing can help Australian artists that'd really make me happy. The way I've set up the company, repurchase rights are extended to ALL artists, regardless of sale price, enforceable privately, instead of relying on a mandated, toothless law.
Benefits of my approach are:
it is pro-artist, rathar than pro patron;
It allows artists to track and control their body of work;
it strengthens the enforcement of an otherwise "toothless" law;
it extends rights to all sales, regardless of price level;
3) it creates "liquidity" (facilitating sales) in a traditionally opaque market;
3) it allows low-income buyers to participate -- artists can place work with non-tradidional buyers later buying it back when conditions are favorable, at no loss in value to their otential estate
4) it provides artist with legacy management for both heirs and insstitutions.
I'd love to get the word out if you think it's worthwile.
Best wishes,
San Diego
California, USA
-Andrew Richard
Post a Comment
<< Home