Art law Australia

Australia joins droit de suite scheme

Latest sign-up reignites controversy as UK anticipates end of “70 years” exemption
Fair deal? Australia's new droit de suite law should help prevent exploitation of native Australian artists (Photo: Anoek De Groot/AFP/Getty Images)

presto, pennsylvania. This month, Australia joins 52 other countries in enacting droit de suite or “artist resale royalty” legislation. The Australian art trade “is very anxious”, said Alida Stanley, interim chief executive of Viscopy, the foremost lobbyist for resale royalty in Australia: “They don’t know how it is going to work and are frustrated because they don’t think it’s a workable scheme.”

Stanley stressed that it will most benefit Australia’s indigenous artists, who have often been exploited.

Droit de suite affords artists a cut of the profits from secondary market sales—which usually fetch higher prices than primary market transactions. While the Australian scheme differs from other countries’ in having a flat uncapped royalty of 5%, and in exempting the first resale of the work, all European countries, except Switzerland, have a version of the system.

Several trade sources argue that it is an added tax that drives down prices, hurting both artists and dealers. “Dealers are having to discount work by as much as 30%, particularly in the mid-section of the market—£10,000 to £2m—because the artist resale royalty is a significant amount relative to the price,” said art economist Clare McAndrew.

“It only really helps those that are already doing well,” said Christopher Battiscombe, director general of the Society of London Art Dealers. “The significant sums are going to a…small group of artists—the top 10%.”

New York-based art advisor Avi Spira, director of Art­ Ventures International, said the scheme is punitive. Referring to his purchase of an early Damien Hirst work at Christie’s London last October, at auction for the fourth time, he said: “In that case, a £10,000 royalty—on top of the hammer price and buyer’s premium—went far afield of the intention to provide for artists.”

Two of the largest international markets do not currently participate in the scheme: the United States (barring California) and China, which some believe causes market distortions. “It is a very leaky boat unless there is global enforcement,” said Lisson Gallery director Nicholas Logsdail. New York art advisor Todd Levin, director of Levin Art Group, generally favours the concept but echoed the need for universal application: “The problem is that not everyone is on an even footing—when L&M in LA, Gagosian in New York, White Cube in Lon­don and Roslyn Oxley9 in Aus­tralia are all subject to [the legislation], no one will care about paying it.”

Nevertheless, some in the UK are particularly concerned. Since its inception in 2006, the UK has only applied the royalty to living artists—unlike most other EU countries, it has been exempt from paying royalties on works by artists who have been dead for less than 70 years. But this is set to change in 2012, according to the EU directive, and the British trade is worried about losing its market share—currently the second largest internationally—to its competitors in China and the US.

“The UK art market employs 60,000 people, and gradually there will be jobs lost as the London market will become less attractive internationally,” ac­cord­ing to Anthony Brown, chair­man of the British Art Market Federation.

However, London-based René Gimpel, director of Gimpel Fils, reproached the British trade for squabbling over “a relatively small, capped amount that benefits artists”. As for the feared flight of art to non-European markets outside Europe, Gimpel pointed out the issue of the European 5% import tax: “If a European collector buys in New York to avoid the capped resale royalty of E12,500, they will have to pay an uncapped 5% import tax to bring the work back into a European country.”

New York counterparts are understandably more relaxed. Lucy Mitchell-Innes, president of the Art Dealers Association of America, said droit de suite was unlikely to be implemented across the US any time soon, saying: “It’s not a widely discussed matter.”

Meanwhile, China is staying out of it. “I was in Beijing recently, and they have never even heard of the European directive,” said McAndrew.

More from The Art Newspaper

Comments

21 Oct 11
16:2 CET

MARCUS, MELBOURNE

Carole, you mention visual artists aren't protected as well as other artists. That isn't entirely true. Author's written work is resold every day in huge volumes, through dedicated stores and websites - for which the writers are not paid. It robs authors of royalties as well. But it's so deeply institutionalised (secondhand book sales) that no one questions it.

19 Jul 10
19:6 CET

KAREN ZADRA, ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA

Cahill Pentgill's summary of the resale royalty in Australia is not entirely accurate: the first resale is only exempt from a royalty payment if it was acquired prior to the Act coming into force on June 9, 2010. No resale attract royalties if the sale price is under AU$1000, but it still needs to be reported (ah, the admin!). It'll be interesting to see if those who are already adept at exploiting Indigenous artists find a way around the scheme. I expect they will. Most of these Indigenous artists do not speak English fluently (or at all), & are illiterate and innumerate - but are by no means stupid. It makes it exceptionally difficult to administer such a scheme under these parameters, & in remote areas far from government's watchful eye. A complex issue that defies the 1000 character limit of this post, sadly. Ultimately, it is a good move for all artists, and the art market will adjust to it in time. In the interim, there'll be several problems to iron out, as we are now finding.

7 Jul 10
15:50 CET

JACK WAKEFIELD, LONDON

I believe (apologies) that Carole is way off. Artists maintain reproduction rights in their work unless they specifically sell them in a contract. They are therefore in exactly the same position as an author or composer who sells their manuscript. It is a nonsense to say that an artist does not have the right to divest themselves of their rights in a piece of property. By all means make a presumption of these retained rights but allow artists to exempt themselves. If artists do get these rights they become a unique species and it becomes difficult to see why architects who's buildings are subject to resale should not also be compensated. It is an intellectual mess.

5 Jul 10
8:7 CET

JAMES SCOTT, LOS ANGELES

I so much agree with Carole in Santa Fe. Although the UK has had to accept the directive from the EC ruling re droit-de-suite, the artist's right to have a share in the resale of his own work, they have postponed implementing it to the Estates of artists. And it is these Estates that usually fund the catalogues, archives, research, books and exhibitions without any assistance from the State or from private investors, or galleries or auction houses. Yet in the end it is these organizations that are profiting. Right on!

5 Jul 10
8:7 CET

SUZANNE JESSICA MURPHY, LONDON U.K.

I have just read your piece: Australia joins droit de suite scheme Latest sign-up reignites controversy as UK anticipates end of “70 years” exemption By Maura Cahill Pettengill | From issue 214, June 2010 Must say I'm abit confussed. I am unaware who this ruling of exemption applies too. The Artist, Dealer, Next?? I believe that Art Should First benefit The Artist, He/She where-ever they are birthed, from The UK / Usa / Aus & On & On, Or their next of Kin if Dead. I feel that without the Artist there is No Art just Greed, which is never a good thing in any Proffession.

30 Jun 10
17:54 CET

CAROLE PIGOTT, SANTA FE, NM

for Kaysee in London The galleries are already stifling the secondary market and driving the prices lower on those artists they don't favor -Gallery margins are not sufficient to sustain this tax???? are you kidding - at 50-70% of the sale price?? What the hell are they doing with the money -

30 Jun 10
3:1 CET

KAYSEE, LONDON

I see both sides of the challenge. An additional payment of this nature may discourage galleries from heavily promoting artists and reselling some artists work. It could stifle the secondary market, and drive prices lower. Gallery margins are not sufficient to sustain this tax - you're in danger of biting the hand that finds your customers.

28 Jun 10
5:42 CET

SENAQ, BORDEAUX

It is the same thing in France: The galeries and museums are always looking after foreign officiel artists and you can find no help if you are not introduce in relations with politics an officials.

24 Jun 10
15:45 CET

CAROLE PIGOTT, SANTA FE, NM

It may not be a widely discussed matter among gallery owners etc. but it is widely discussed among artists - why are visual artists excluded when all of the other forms of art give royalties to artists??? because the artists who create have no lobbyists for them -there is no financial benefit for those with the museums = galleries - auction houses - and as explained - taking care of the artists is detrimental to their sales. Note Lucy Mitcell Innis is the head of the Art Dealers Ass. - she speaks for all of the art jobbers who pull in a regular salary while those who create are left in the cold.- find an professional artist and ask them the same question.

Submit a comment

Please provide your email address. This is in case we wish to contact you - it will not be made public and we do not use it for any other purpose.

Email*
 
Name*
 
City*
 
Comment*
 

Also by Maura Cahill Pettengill

Share this

Vauxhall
Astra