1. The resale right in the UK SHOULD be extended to include deceased artists still in copyright, but when you are building a coalition to pass a difficult law favoring the less powerful, it’s often becomes expedient to focus on harder parts later.

2. UK dealers WILL take their business overseas if the profits warrant it, but most artists don’t warrant it — their problem is selling anything at all.

3. Lacking an enforcement infrastructure, a private model is the only one capable of the flexibility required for each artists particular situation.

Andrew@SecuritizedArts.com

What about collectors that have paid thousands too much for an over-hyped artist that was hot at one time, but is now worth much less? Can they be compensated by the artist or the estate of the artist?

Paintings are products, just like real estate or cars, once they are sold, they no longer belong to the seller (artist). If a collector is lucky enough to have picked a winner, he/she deserves the profit.. all of it.

Being an artist, I wont be refusing any resale royalties though

Are you not concerned that the artist in a consignment arrangement does not get any money until the work sells, vs. being paid out right if the dealer buys it for resale?

Many artists I deal with won’t consent to consignment. They need the money. Now.

That’s one of the unintended consequences I am referring to.

As for unprofitable resales, perhaps the change in the way the dealer does business will be to purchase only works from proven artists with a track record that assures a profitable resale. An artist who doesn’t fall in that category is out of luck, I guess.

Aside from that, I am not moved by an argument that imposes additional expense on a business and then says the business that can make money under those circumstances should change its way of doing business.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think this scheme is good for the artists or the art market.

But thanks for detail was lacking.

Will dealers risk buying from young and not yet rising artists, recognizing that the resale of their work may never reach a level that justifies a gain,let alone a royalty?

Will the scheme allow for works on which the dealer takes a loss? Obviously, one will not be able to go the artist for a “reverse royalty”. Perhaps there will be a credit from the royalty collecting authority that will be deducted from gains realized on other works.

And, yes, I believe that dealers will go outside of the jurisdiction of the royalty collector to sell, if it makes a difference between selling at a price covers the dealer’s risk, investment and operating expense vs. not making a sale or losing money on a sale.

There is a tendency to view dealers as people who victimize the artists and deprive them of their true earnings. But without dealers, would there even be a market?

Dealers help both to stabilize prices and to increase the value of the most accomplished artists, thereby encouraging them to earn more money from their next work.

But tell me, how has the UK scheme worked concerning these issues? Is it being tracked not only for intended benefits but also unintended consequences?

Also, if the royalty was extended to the work of deceased artists, to whom would the royalty be paid? The heirs? The estate? Or the royalty authority? Woul dhte royalty be taxable? Isn’t this just another way to collect more taxes?

Thank you for any enlightenment?