Comments on: Garrett’s art resale scheme “a disaster’ for artists http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/24/garretts-art-resale-scheme-a-disaster-for-artists/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:48:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anne Sanders http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/24/garretts-art-resale-scheme-a-disaster-for-artists/#comment-3439 Anne Sanders Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-3439 Me thinks Michael Keighery, Chair of Viscopy, doth protesteth too much…<br /><br />In 2004, Viscopy and CAL (copyright collecting agencies whose very raison d’etre is based upon fees generated on the collection of various primary and statutory copyrights) commissioned the very same Access Economics to prepare a report on the likely impact of the introduction of a resale royalty on eligible Australian artists. The modelling parameters of this study were set by Viscopy.<br /><br />Access Economics warned in that report that the claim of net benefit to artists was: “based upon extremely unrealistic assumptions, in particular the assumption that seller and buyer behaviour would be completely unaffected by the introduction of RRR [a resale royalty right]” and that, “Access Economics considers that the results of this analysis are both unhelpful and potentially misleading.” <br /><br />The statement yesterday by Viscopy that art is not affected by economic considerations is a continuation of the same pattern of "extremely unrealistic assumptions… that are both unhelpful and potentially misleading”. New art typically sells for prices between $3,000 and $100,000: only a fool or a charlatan would pretend that art sales take place in some parallel universe and are not affected by economic laws. These collecting societies are still not listening. <br /><br /> Me thinks Michael Keighery, Chair of Viscopy, doth protesteth too much…

In 2004, Viscopy and CAL (copyright collecting agencies whose very raison d’etre is based upon fees generated on the collection of various primary and statutory copyrights) commissioned the very same Access Economics to prepare a report on the likely impact of the introduction of a resale royalty on eligible Australian artists. The modelling parameters of this study were set by Viscopy.

Access Economics warned in that report that the claim of net benefit to artists was: “based upon extremely unrealistic assumptions, in particular the assumption that seller and buyer behaviour would be completely unaffected by the introduction of RRR [a resale royalty right]” and that, “Access Economics considers that the results of this analysis are both unhelpful and potentially misleading.”

The statement yesterday by Viscopy that art is not affected by economic considerations is a continuation of the same pattern of “extremely unrealistic assumptions… that are both unhelpful and potentially misleading”. New art typically sells for prices between $3,000 and $100,000: only a fool or a charlatan would pretend that art sales take place in some parallel universe and are not affected by economic laws. These collecting societies are still not listening.

]]> By: James Guest http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/24/garretts-art-resale-scheme-a-disaster-for-artists/#comment-3440 James Guest Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-3440 As I implied in my recent Radio National "Perspective" on Peter Garrett and the real scandal of copyright Garrett's absurd scheme (which any half competent tax lawyer could think of many ways to subvert if its intrinsic flaws didn't abort it) should be the catalyst for serious attention to scaling way back towards Patent law levels of protection the outrageous handout of public goods to private interests which are not even the creators which it is the point of IP law to encourage. Cp. 20 years for a life saving drug against up to about 150 years (+ another 20 in America) if a copyright work is created by a 20 year old who lives to 100. Why should Agatha Christie's great-grandchildren be relieved of the need to work by West End hits or the Garrick Club renovated by the continuing sale of Christopher Robin books? Garrett's scheme is even worse because the compulsory pension to heirs canot be alienated to allow the artist creator to pay for a grandchild to go to Harvard or start a business, or even to finance an operation for himself in old age! The statutory conferring of rights of any kind should be for value to the public. IP law should all be about providing just as much incentive as is needed to create worthwhile inventions and works of art, music and literature, and to encourage their being made widely available, and no more. Otherwise it simply increases the price of what is already created or makes them unavailable where a copyright owner (often Disney Corporation or an opportunistic investment bank) decides to restrict publication. Life or 25 years whichever is the greater is more than enough protection for copyright to ensure the creative do create and make their work public and available. A fortiori if something as absurd as a resale royalty is brought in. BTW Garrett would ensure that 40 sales @ $100,000 gave the artist and heirs $200,000! If you're on your uppers marry a Whiteley heir. As I implied in my recent Radio National “Perspective” on Peter Garrett and the real scandal of copyright Garrett’s absurd scheme (which any half competent tax lawyer could think of many ways to subvert if its intrinsic flaws didn’t abort it) should be the catalyst for serious attention to scaling way back towards Patent law levels of protection the outrageous handout of public goods to private interests which are not even the creators which it is the point of IP law to encourage. Cp. 20 years for a life saving drug against up to about 150 years (+ another 20 in America) if a copyright work is created by a 20 year old who lives to 100. Why should Agatha Christie’s great-grandchildren be relieved of the need to work by West End hits or the Garrick Club renovated by the continuing sale of Christopher Robin books? Garrett’s scheme is even worse because the compulsory pension to heirs canot be alienated to allow the artist creator to pay for a grandchild to go to Harvard or start a business, or even to finance an operation for himself in old age! The statutory conferring of rights of any kind should be for value to the public. IP law should all be about providing just as much incentive as is needed to create worthwhile inventions and works of art, music and literature, and to encourage their being made widely available, and no more. Otherwise it simply increases the price of what is already created or makes them unavailable where a copyright owner (often Disney Corporation or an opportunistic investment bank) decides to restrict publication. Life or 25 years whichever is the greater is more than enough protection for copyright to ensure the creative do create and make their work public and available. A fortiori if something as absurd as a resale royalty is brought in. BTW Garrett would ensure that 40 sales @ $100,000 gave the artist and heirs $200,000! If you’re on your uppers marry a Whiteley heir.

]]>