Hard News: Art and the Big Guy
143 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
The paper is reporting the royalty period as 70 years after death, not 50.
Personally I can see no particular reason for copyright to run even 50 years past death; 25 seems perfectly adequete. A famous relative ought not be a sinecure.
Other than that, I'm relatively relaxed, so long as it isn't implemented in such a way as to encourage art to be whisked off to a nearby country with no reciprocal laws for sale.
-
Can I get a cut of the Trade Me and Ebay prices some of my early stuff hauls in now then? I like this idea....
-
Other than that, I'm relatively relaxed, so long as it isn't implemented in such a way as to encourage art to be whisked off to a nearby country with no reciprocal laws for sale.
I guess there's that risk with the Australian government having nixed the idea in favour of a big new wedge of taxpayer funding. But it seems that a number of dealers there already operate voluntary resale royalty schemes, and the predicted art-flight in Britain just hasn't happened.
-
In the case of Britain, though, many neighbours seem to have implemented it.
The other concern I personally give most weight to are the artists who are worried that if the speculator market is undermined they'll lose exposure. Dealers and suchlike? Feh. I'm inclined to see middlemen as at best a necessary evil.
-
Can I get a cut of the Trade Me and Ebay prices some of my early stuff hauls in now then? I like this idea....
You need to be cleverer: certain bold alternative music artists in NZ have become quite adept at creating scarcity and then hauling the last box out from under the bed to cash in on the fanboy market. If you hadn't been having such a good time you might have thought about that at the time, hey?
But seriously, I think comparisons with music have limits, other than to suggest that a collection system is viable. You're selling copies of works, not the originals.
-
This whole idea that artists - or the RIAA - is owed a living is rediculous. You sell something, then it belongs to someone else and if they make money out of it then good on them. Its not hewn in stone that artists are guaranteed a living.
Does it mean that all those people who pick up a dirt painting for a pound at a car boot sale, take the jolly thing to the antiques roadshow and discover its worth 5000 pounds have to pay a cut to the artist or the artist's estate? What a load of rubbish.
-
I should use spell check more...
-
merc,
Matiisse negotiated this system for himself, and more, Picasso picked it up from him. It's all in the negotiation and the clout you have, or could have. Dali used to do a good line on signed litho's. Whatever you can get away with I say. There's a book I read on how The Modernists, Picasso especially manipulated (with his agents) the market and prices, not what you'd think.
My brother left to play rugby in Italy, then France, he never came back, frankly, compared to Europe and South Africa, NZ rugby is headed for trouble. -
Can I get a cut of the Trade Me and Ebay prices some of my early stuff hauls in now then? I like this idea....
Well, not an entirely facetious question IMO. I recently wanted to replace my ratty reading copy of Maurice Gee's 'Going West'. Being the cheap bastard that I am, I found it at a local secondhand book store for less than half what it would cost me to buy new (and contribute to Mr. Gee's next royalty cheque). And looking at a couple of dealer site, there's some folks asking north of $US100 for some of his first editions.
Where's Mo's cut? :)
-
This whole idea that artists - or the RIAA - is owed a living is rediculous. You sell something, then it belongs to someone else and if they make money out of it then good on them. Its not hewn in stone that artists are guaranteed a living.
Maybe not, but over the years we've first invented the idea of copyright then blessed various schemes and collecting agencies to exercise it. Writers get the modest return of the Writers' Fund as compensation for their works being held in libraries, songwriters get a slice of commercial radio advertising revenue, etc.
There's no intrinsic right in any of that. You do it to encourage the creation of new works, or because you value the role of artists in society, whatever.
You could argue that the family of Colin McCahon, having struggled through his life as a misunderstood artist, should benefit from the massive posthumous inflation in the value of his work. I'm simply saying it's worth discussing.
Does it mean that all those people who pick up a dirt painting for a pound at a car boot sale, take the jolly thing to the antiques roadshow and discover its worth 5000 pounds have to pay a cut to the artist or the artist's estate? What a load of rubbish.
It seems unlikely that private sales would come under such a scheme and even if they did, the resale royalty in that case would be 5p. If cashing up your windfall on someone else's ignorance means forgoing 5%, that hardly seems onerous.
-
I don’t know, it just seems so precious and bourgeoisie for artists to expect special treatment. If I get a flash paint job on my Ford Escort and subsequently get a much better price for it, do I owe a cut to the spray painter? I doubt it! For a spray painter is a mere working class artisan, and not deserving of the recognition of a big, posh artist type who has certain refined lifestyle expectations, apart from needing to fund hisor her's beret collection.
I will say again: no one is owed a living. If you feel compelled to be an artist then good on you, but capitalism can be a cruel mistress so don’t expect others to save from your own mistakes if you sell to cheap.
-
merc,
I thank God, thus far, I have not made it to the second hand bin...
-
merc,
Tom, respectfully, you need to get out more.
-
There's no intrinsic right in any of that. You do it to encourage the creation of new works, or because you value the role of artists in society, whatever.
Or that you being given the use of someone else's intellectual property - just like, at the risk of sounding utterly wanky, I'm receiving a modest but most welcome payment for my contributions to PA Radio.
-
There's no intrinsic right in any of that.
Well, there's no intrinsic right in any kind of property, really. It's a social convenience that we have property rights that go beyond "what you can take, or stop others from taking."
-
"a big, posh artist type who has certain refined lifestyle expectations"
You don't actually know any artists, do you?
-
it is not about selling too cheap. Works of art increase in value as the reputation of the artist increases. Early works sold to a dealer for a pittance can become valauble as the artist becomes famous. The dealer has a part in this, since his reputation boosts that of the artist.
The dealer is in a position to exploit the artist and there are many known cases of such. I am not sure of the position in New Zealand but dealers in Britain usually take at least half of the prices fetched by artists they represent. That is a big cut.
There have been instances, such as Wildenstein's treatment of the estate of Mark Rothko, of outright fraud committed by dealers against the artists they represent. The government's proposed scheme will at least ensure that artists get a fair cut.
-
merc,
Yup, that's me alright, and it's because of my poshness and refined lifestyle that I am an artist and poet in NZ, the greatest and kindest arts home on this good earth...and the lovely relics from the 50's. BTW Tom, I hold down a fulltime job, am married, have kids and still find time to surf, BOOM! cliche denied.
-
Actually Stephen I do, and I respect their talent. But to me this sounds like special pleading from a group of people who want to be protected from their own pooor business decisions.
-
I think the rate is significant. The reason why the UK art market isn't shifting overseas is that for an initial rate of 4% (falling to 0.25% on high value items) it isn't worth it.
Likely to be the same here I suspect.
-
merc,
Tom, I'll never ask you for anything, least of all to protect me, and as a bonus I won't even start to consider telling you how to run your life.
-
I will say again: no one is owed a living. If you feel compelled to be an artist then good on you, but capitalism can be a cruel mistress so don’t expect others to save from your own mistakes if you sell to cheap.
I somehow don't think Colin McCahon would have been able to ask $2.75 million for 'Walk (Series C)', which is what Te Papa paid for it in 2004, 30 years after it was painted.
The poor bugger could hardly feed his family sometimes. Yet I'd derive even more pleasure from beholding it if I knew that some small fraction of that huge sum had gone back to that family.
-
You need to be cleverer: certain bold alternative music artists in NZ have become quite adept at creating scarcity and then hauling the last box out from under the bed to cash in on the fanboy market. If you hadn't been having such a good time you might have thought about that at the time, hey?
Both Bryan Staff and Harry Ratbag did exactly that. We had an approach about doing a limited AK79 vinyl run a while back, and Bryan was aghast...he has a box somewhere under the bed. Rumour has the Russell family still has a bunch of Herco Pilots somewhere, although Harry denies it
I actually kept a few copies of the early Propellers and the other Propeller distributed stuff (Gordons, Steroids, Mockers etc), but time diffused them. The big earners are the Suburban Reptiles though....$505 for Sat Night on Trade me and US$300 for the Megaton 12" on a collectors site...damn it all. only 500 of each pressed.
-
The artists' royalty sounds like a great idea. 5% is modest.
But I don't like the 50 years after death proviso- because all copyright/patenting law has gone too far in this regard. Well past the public good, well past the incentive to create more (wasn't there a medium who claimed to be channelling Shakespeare or something? -but works published posthumously still deserve some protection) and seriously into flogging dead horses.
Speaking of which: have to agree with the prognosis for NZ rugby. The All Blacks- and NZ rugby in general- have not yet recovered from/fully adapted to the all-consuming Super 10-12-14 competition. Despite making money out of it myself :-) and enjoying a lot of the great rugby it's produced, it's crammed the season and disrupted the other games and teams in ways that are as easy to identify as they are hard to hard to quantify. -
I don’t know, it just seems so precious and bourgeoisie for artists to expect special treatment. If I get a flash paint job on my Ford Escort and subsequently get a much better price for it, do I owe a cut to the spray painter? I doubt it! For a spray painter is a mere working class artisan, and not deserving of the recognition of a big, posh artist type who has certain refined lifestyle expectations, apart from needing to fund hisor her's beret collection.
Yeah, you're right. Fuck those artists, they've had it too good for too long, especially in New Zealand. Look at McCahon for example. Posh wanker.
Especially when those poor arts dealers/collectors that have been forced to live in cold hovels eating gruel.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.