RE: [dvd-discuss] Nutty art laws (CRRA) about resale of art.

["Nathaniel R. Merriam" <NMerriam(at)artboy.org>]

As an artist, i must say the law sounds sensible. It does not reward them
for doing nothing -- it rewards the artist for increasing the value of the
past work by their future work. Artworks do not increase in value just for
the heck of it -- they increase in value because the artist builds a
portfolio of great work that makes collectors seek out their earlier works.

This is essentially no different than other forms of creative royalties --
for 99% of the people it makes no difference because they won't create a
body of work that is in enough demand to meet the payment threshold, but for
those who DO go on to create great work they get rewarded.

Should Jerry Seinfeld not get royalties from those syndicating his TV show?
After all, the TV stations are taking all the real "risk" of syndicating and
broadcasting it, all he did was make the darn show and build an
international reputation as a comedian. That doesn't take as much "risk"?

The recording companies should avoid paying royalties because we all know
they take the real "risks" in promoting a new band, right? All the band does
is strum the guitar on cue. That doesn't take much risk.

Nathaniel

>
> As purchasing something like art for appreciation is a risk, something
> that the origional artist will not accrur, this law seems unbalanced. It
> rewards someone for doing nothing. I propose that an amendment be made,
> such that if the cost of the artwork depreciates, the artist is liable for
> 5% of the difference.