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

[Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>]

You think that these laws are strange, well, check out:
   http://www.artswire.org/current/2000/cur032100.html


``BRITAIN COMPROMISES ON RESALE ROYALTIES FOR ARTISTS''

which basically says that each time someone sells an artwork in britian,
the origional artist gets 2-4% royalty.. Cute, but regretabily, this is
not a British invention.

Cause of the ``California Resale Royalty Act''
http://www.cac.ca.gov/secondary_page/programs/CA_Resale_Royalties%20Act.htm
which:

    ``Under this law, if a work of art is resold for $1,000 or more and
      that price exceeds the price the seller paid for that work of art,
      the seller must pay the artist five percent of that resale price. It
      is the seller's obligation to locate the artist and pay the royalty
      due.''

And, it applies for the lifetime of the artist+28 years?!?!?

Here's a choice quote:

    ``"This right of artists to share in the appreciated value of their
      works when resold is important both in principle and in dollars, CAC
      states.''


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.

Its only fair, don't you think?

Well, either that, or repeal the law, both there, and around the world
[partial legal analysis of this type of law around the world
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:FuQKyzXdtaw:www.simpsons.com.au/library/documents/visarts/visarts89/9Artists.pdf+CALIFORNIA+RESALE+ROYALTY+ACT+&hl=en]

Scott


PS: After hearing about this, I will never purchase an artwork in
california or from a california artist.

PPS: Damned whiney artists.