Here is the law we're talking about
http://www.cac.ca.gov/artsinfo/resaleroyalty.php
It's called a "re-sale royalty" which sounds a little odd. When you sell a copy of a book or play a piece of music you are usually going to pay a royalty to the originator. The author probably has his own "original" copy of digital media or notepaper - you are in effect paying for the right to use something the artist created with permission.
Theoretically with something like a painting or a drawing there is only ONE original like Highlander - there can be only one. How do you get a royalty on something there is only one of?
Originally I thought this would involve reproduction rights - but it doesn't it specifically involves the increase of value of a thing because of the increase in value of the artist.
If Picasso paints a square and I paint a square and they look the same, are made of the same materials, possibly painted with the same intent TO PROTEST THE CONFORMITY OF SOCIETY IN SHADE OF BLUE, there is nothing in the world that will make our painted squares have the same re-sale value unless I suddenly become Marilyn Monroe levels of famous.
If Picasso sells his square at the height of his career for 100 Million Dollars to Austin Powers and then Austin Powers sells it to Dr. Evil for 100 million Dollars - Picasso will not get a retail royalty under this law, the inherent value of the painting hasn't changed - there is no potential that the artist has imbued the painting with more value.
If Fox Brown befriends a destitute Picasso who was down on his luck in the mid 1930's and bought the square for 20$ held on to it for 30 years and sold it for 100 million to Dr. Evil then the only reason it was worth more than my painting of a Square in the Shade of Blue is because of the totality of Picasso's work as an artist - he himself imbued it with value due to the context of his work. Under California ( and some other countries laws - he would get a royalty - Dr. Evil is not buying A Square in the Shade of Blue, he is buying a pieces of Picasso - otherwise he'd buy a cheaper one. They royalty is so that artists benefit from their artistic prestige instead of middlemen and brokers doing it.
Let's say the sale didn't have that law - Foxy would make a profit - but the art dealer would get a commission of 10%, the appraiser will get some cash for verifying it, the new owner would get the opportunity for it to appreciate more after Picasso dies and make money off of it. It's not simply a thing - it's literally selling a piece of Picasso - who got 20 bucks for it but maybe doens't have health insurance now. - 4 people become millionaires off literally selling HIM but he gets nothing. I still have a Blue square - no one cares, it's meaningless as far as the artworld is concerned.
The issue is a little like bad contracts the motown singers and songwriters would get into where everyone else makes money off them but them. We don't subsidize artists in any real way so this is a way for them to not be destitute while their work is creating whole industries. But the other thing it does is prevent abuse.
We'll use our favorite girl in peril Penelope Pitstop - she paints something beautiful, Dick Dastardly sees it and tell her he'll stop jacking up her car if she sells it to him. She doesn't know that it's got value and she sells it for 15 bucks - that plus the lack of car sabatoge seems like a pretty good deal to her.
Dick sends Mutley out to have it appraised Mutley shows it to Gorgeous George the art dealer - He's WOWED - this will change EVERYTHING. They start and art world blitz Mutley will take a fee - Dick will keep Penelope painting.
Penelope really just cares about driving cars and does the art thing as free expression - she keeps selling for 15.00 NEVER knowing that her paintings are selling for 10 grand - which would buy a lot of carburetors.
This law means even if she's screwed or taken advantage of - the owners who sell will have to find her and pay the difference * .05% and Dick's scheme will get found out. Or if he can cover it up the first sale he won't be able to cover it up 20 years later.
That used to be what the old patrons did - feed starving artists - take their work and gratitude - keep them poor and sell high then go back for more. It was a hella lot like trafficking based prostitution ( not the good sex positive choosing one's choice kind). This law makes that kind of abuse less likely.
This is fast _I'll clean it up later,
Love you Heather.
No comments:
Post a Comment