- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
- 2016-2017 Symposium
- 2015-2016 Symposium
- 2014-2015 Symposium
- 2013-2014 Symposium
- 2012-2013 Symposium
- 2011-2012 Symposium
- 2010-2011 Symposium
- 2009-2010 Symposium
- 2008-2009 Symposium
- 2007-2008 Symposium
The art world celebrated this week. First, a painting of Jesus Christ was identified as the work of Leonardo da Vinci. The painting, called “Salvator Mundi,” is the first Leonardo to be discovered in over 100 years and is one of only fifteen surviving Leonardo paintings in the world. Second, perhaps because stocks plummeted and Europe’s debt crisis unfolded, collectors invested heavily in art. This past Wednesday, Sotheby’s achieved its third highest total for a contemporary art sale ever, bringing in almost $200 million in one evening.
Sotheby’s makes a commission from each sale at its auctions. It retains 25% of the first $50,000, 20% of the next $50,000-$1million and 12% of the rest. By contrast, the artists whose works are resold at the auction do not receive a penny. In the United States, there is no federal law that provides artists with resale rights. However, this may change in the near future, for the Artists’ Rights Society and Bruce Lehman, the former commissioner of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, are lobbying Congress for a droit de suite law.
Droit de Suite refers to an artist’s resale right. Each time an artist’s work is resold, he (or his heirs) is entitled to a royalty payment. The right is based on fairness and rooted in the belief that if art appreciates in value, the artist should be able to share in the proceeds.
Although droit de suite laws, at first blush, appear rather benign, they are quite controversial, particularly in the United States. When Senator Edward Kennedy proposed that resale rights be included in VARA (Visual Artists Rights Act), the idea was so contentious that it had to be excluded from the bill. California compensated for this lost provision by enacting the California Resale Royalty Act, which requires sellers to pay artists 5% of the resale price of a work if the price exceeds $1,000. But California is the only state to adopt such a law.
Why have other states not followed suit? After all, it seems patently unfair that a seller could turn a substantial profit off of a living artist’s work while the artist receives nothing. Indeed, the European laws were fueled by stories such as that of Jean-Francois Millet, whose heirs sold flowers to earn a living in Paris while his works sold for millions in auction houses. Why is this country resistant to droit de suite?
First and foremost, a resale rights law could be detrimental to unknown artists, as buyers will likely demand lower prices for art in order to pay the resale fee. The work of unknown artists is not often resold; thus, these artists will likely not earn royalties and would be significantly harmed.
Second, in addition to harming unknown artists, resale rights laws could potentially harm small art dealers and galleries who cannot afford to raise prices on works simply to pay the royalty.
Third, large auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s fear that it will cause collectors to resell their works in other countries, where droit de suite does not exist, causing a market flight.
Fourth, it could be a logistical nightmare. If sellers or collection agencies have trouble tracking down the artist, the state would have to hold the royalty in escrow until the artist is found. This issue was documented in a recent Wall Street Journal article that featured Patty Milich, California’s art sleuth. The article chronicles Ms. Milich’s months-long attempts to deliver often smalls sums of money to artists who have either “faded into obscurity, moved abroad, or simply don’t want to be bothered.”
Fifth, there could be international conflict, as exemplified by the battle between Salvador Dali’s heirs and Spain for the royalties from recent sales of Dali’s artwork. Dali had named Spain as the only heir to his intellectual property rights; however, French law gave priority to droit de suite and gave the resale proceeds to Dali’s living heirs. Spain sued and the European Court of Justice ruled in its favor, deciding that the royalties should be distributed in accordance to Dali’s will.
Finally, the artists who will benefit most from this law are those whose work is famous enough to sell repeatedly. Indeed, a study shows that in France, “approximately 70 percent of the royalty payments went to the estates of a handful of famous 20th-century artists, like Picasso.” Picasso was a millionaire. Do artists like Picasso really need more money?
Despite the controversy, the Artists’ Rights Society and Bruce Lehman are campaigning for droit de suite in the United States. They believe that artists should be rewarded for their work. Yet will Congress adopt this legislation? Perhaps the better question is, during this time of economic uncertainty when Congress is attempting to cut government spending, should it adopt this legislation?
– Frances Kammeraad
Recent Blog Posts
- The Cost of Being Free
- Will Trump’s Department of Justice Continue the 100% Licensing Fight?
- Court Software: A New Hurdle for the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System
- President Trump’s Executive Order and the Technology Community
- Recapping JETLaw’s 2017 Symposium!
- Meitu: fun new app or serious threat to your privacy?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution