The Art Newspaper

VANESSA FORBES, LOS ANGELES

This bill is necessary but should have been generated from within the United States and not the European Union. Artists creations and visual rights belong strictly to the creator, meaning the artist. in California the law already exists and is enforceable nation wide as it already exists in almost every state in the United States. there is no way this law should federally carve up artists visual roylaties and thus allocate said royalties with an even split for the artist and their descendants receiving half and museums receiving a mandatory payment for the other half of the total 7% royalty payment. the Federal government certainly does not do this in music royalties or literary works so therefore, why should this be done to visual artists, who happen to be the lowest paid of all the artists! the European Union is lobbying the US Federal government because so many of their artists paintings are sold in the U.S. for millions. Artist should have the same royalty payments as in music!

JOE, CATAUMET

The museums, auction houses, critics, dealers, and investors have already destroyed the art world with their infusion of ridiculous amounts of money and their manipulation of the market. Art is now an investment vehicle, not an object of beauty. The last thing we need to do is give the museums more money to further inflate the market for investors. Giving the museums money just intensifies the corruption and cronyism in the art establishment for those who can pay to play. The money should go only to the artist and it should apply to all sales above a certain level. Only the most successful artists are sold at auction and unless they squandered their money, they don't need the royalty as much as lower tier artists and their families.

BEN, OSLO

Artists who need help are seldom sold at auction.

EDWARD, PALO ALTO

In what other business does the maker get paid for subsequent sales? How about 7% to the architect each time a house is re-sold or 7% to Tiffany or Maserati each time those luxury items are re-sold? Conversely, shouldn't artists or their successors reimburse owners who lose money when objects decrease in value?

MARK, HALIFAX

when you stop talking about what they did do and start talking about every thing that they did not do. then it becomes every clear exactly where your place is that you belong in. and you thought you smelt the scent of change in the air.

CAROLE PIGOTT, SANTA FE, NM.

half to the artist and half to museums - you are kidding - don"t the art museums get enough of the art money without taking more away from the artists. Artists need to have lobbyists who are not also lobbying for art associations. Give Artists a Break - half to the museums - i can't get over that - what crap

SUSAN KRAFT, REDWOOD CITY

I am glad to see some movement to put artists on the financial grade. Residuals & royalties will eventually become seen as the right thing to do, as done in the music & movie business. The historical divide keeping creative visual artists in a lower class standing from the business of art can't last forever, can it?

JOHN, CANBERRRA

As of next year resale royalties in the UK will be applied to the resale of dead artists artworks. This will give US auction houses a competitive edge over UK auction houses when it comes to attracting the resales of artworks worth more that about $100,000. This proposed legislation seems aimed at protecting the UK's top auction houses from competition from US auction houses , why would a American vote for it?

JOHN, AUSTRALIA

"The legislation, as it stands, would only apply to the resale of works at public auction houses “with more than $25 million in sales in the prior year”. Auction houses that operate only online would be excluded, as would private galleries. " are they serious??? would this sort of anti competitive - restriction of trade- tariff- thing be even remotely possible ??