UK Looking To Ditch Right Of First Sale On Artwork?

from the bad,-bad-ideas dept

We've written in the past about how the "right of first sale" is a big area where tangible goods and non-tangible goods have problems matching up. Pro-copy protection advocates like to claim that things like copyrights make digital goods "just like" physical goods. However, as soon as you bring up the right of first sale, which would let the person who bought the product do what they want with it (sell it, destroy it, change it, give it away, etc.) we're told that doesn't apply -- proving that copyright law doesn't actually make digital goods just like tangible goods. Of course, it looks like the UK is trying to take a massive step in the wrong direction to deal with this issue. BoingBoing points out that the UK is considering an "artist resale right," which basically overrides the right of first sale. The artist resale right would mean that any time his or her artwork is sold, even after the first sale, the artist gets a cut. It's actually trying to take some of the limitations of digital goods and move them back out to physical goods -- which is a backwards proposition. It also makes the artwork in question that much less valuable by adding this unnecessary restriction to it -- basically saying that the original creator of something always owns some component of it. If the artist wants to try to sell their artwork with that restriction on it, then they can do that, but to have such restrictions forced on them by law seems dangerous. The article above also discusses the various ways in which this won't help artists and will likely just drive some of the art market out of the UK, but what's most scary about it is the further attempt to erode the right of first sale by taking concepts from digital goods protection and trying to move them to tangible goods. It's a step down a dangerous path.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Pete Austin, 2 Sep 2005 @ 4:03am

    Too Late!

    Unfortunately it's too late for UK Citizens to comment, as the closing date was 16 May 2005. Consultation.

    Personally I think one real problem is defining "original works of art" in a digital age. Also the right is not assignable to another person, so if this applies to open source software, then as I read the draft regulations (PDF) thousands of authors could be due miniscule amounts of money from every sale.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pete Austin, 2 Sep 2005 @ 4:15am

    To Avoid this Fee

    You don't *RESELL* your unique work of art, you *LEASE* it to the would-be buyer for 99 years with the option to buy at a nominal price when the lease expires.

    IANAL, but I expect lawyers will come up with dozens of similar avoidance schemes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Geeklawyer, 2 Sep 2005 @ 2:29pm

      Re: To Avoid this Fee

      I'd have to say I agree. I can only assume the administrative overheads rule against the lease/rent idea. From a legal perspective this is an ideal solution. Of course with DRM etc. DRM + paracopright achieve the functional effectiveness of leasing *and* the financial benefits, to the corporation, of ownership: maximal revenue minimal overheads.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2005 @ 11:08am

    Used book store?

    Does this mean that used book stores will have no viable business model?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    aNonMooseCowherd, 2 Sep 2005 @ 5:38pm

    sale contract

    So what's to keep a buyer from requiring the seller, as a condition of purchase, to waive any kickback rights accorded by the law?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.