US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones

from the shameful dept

We've written a few times about the absolute ridiculousness of the idea of an artist resale right, also known as "droit de suite." The basic concept is as follows: an artist sells a piece of artwork, such as a painting. Then, when the buyer later sells that painting to someone else, a percentage of the price has to be given back to the original artist. So, every time that painting is resold, there's a tax on it that goes back to the original artist. A few countries have done this, and it's basic economic illiteracy that drives this idea forward.

Here's the basic theory behind it (which is wrong, as we'll explain after). When an artist is new, they're not well-known, and people are not willing to pay very high prices for their works. So, people buy them up for very low prices. However, as that artist becomes more well established and successful, the price of their older works increases (sometimes significantly) as well. And the buyers who purchased their original works for very little money, can now resell them to others for very large sums -- and the original artist gets none of that. Thus, by adding an "artist resale royalty," it guarantees that an artist later benefits from the appreciation in price of his or her earlier works.

Now, here's why that theory is complete bunk -- and such resale rights are actually more harm than good for artists. First off, this punishes the early risk-taking buyers who are willing to buy the artwork of no name artists, by making it clear that they are going to have an extra tax (the royalty they need to pay back to the artist) on any future sales of the work. Like any tax, this decreases the amount they're willing to pay initially, as well as the amount of the activity they're willing to engage in. So, at a time when artists need those sales the most -- when they're just starting out -- an artist resale royalty drives down the demand for their works by deliberately making their artwork a worse investment. Furthermore, this depreciating impact carries through on all future purchases as well. It's braindead and harms those artists who need the sales the most.

But, people will ask, what about those "poor" artists who see their early works, which they sold for hundreds, now selling for millions. Isn't that unfair? Well, not really. First, if their early works are selling for millions, you can bet that there's a pretty big market for any new works as well. And, now, when they do create a new work, they can take it to market directly themselves, and get that same huge return. This is a good thing, as it also encourages new works by those artists.

Also, as a point of comparison, I would imagine that no artist would ever accept the idea that if a buyer later resells their artwork for a loss that the artist should then pay the original buyer for the failure of the artwork to appreciate. But if you think a resale royalty makes sense, why wouldn't the same be true if the artwork declines in price?

In the end, implementing an artist resale royalty significantly harms the market for new and struggling artists, making it a worse investment to buy their works. Instead, it diverts significant money in the artworld to already successful artists, and gives those artists fewer reasons to create new artwork, since they're able to profit off of ongoing sales of their years old works. On top of that, it's just generally insulting to the basic concept of ownership, and the fact that when you sell something, you no longer own it.

Still, some of those big name artists have been lobbying hard to change the laws around the globe in favor this very stupid concept. They have a group called the Artists Rights' Society, and hired Bruce Lehman to be their main lobbyist. If you don't recognize the name, Lehman is the guy behind the DMCA, who has long been a massive maximalist in all forms of intellectual property -- and he's not ashamed to admit it, or to attack those who point out that maximalism has downsides. For example, he once threatened to rip out Prof. James Boyle's throat, after Boyle pointed out the dangers of the DMCA, and then said that he would make sure that Boyle was denied tenure.

Unfortunately, Lehman is still a voice that people in the Copyright Office listen to, and last year he was successful in convincing the Copyright Office to revisit the issue of resale royalties. The Copyright Office has now come out with its report on the matter, and despite having rejected the concept in 1992, is now much more supportive of the idea. They do this, even while recognizing the negative impact as described above:
It does appear that most of the direct benefits created by resale royalty schemes inure to artists at the higher end of the income spectrum. “Researchers are virtually unanimous” that the “distribution of payments under an ARR regime is greatly skewed” in favor of a minority of established, blue-chip artists.
But they immediately dismiss this, by noting that this is no different than our existing copyright system for authors and musicians. Of course, rather than recognizing that this is a problem of the current copyright system, the report seems to assume that this means the fact that the system unfairly benefits those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom, that it's a perfectly fine system. The report does an awful lot of "on the one hand/on the other hand" statements, before noting that either the data has been inconclusive, or pointing to more general evidence that places with a resale royalty that haven't seen their markets collapse is somehow evidence that the downsides might not be so bad.

In the end, the report "supports Congress's consideration of such legislation" (meaning that such legislation will show up very soon -- as you can bet it's all ready to go, likely written by Lehman, and sitting in a drawer somewhere in the Capitol). The report does say that there may be other ways to "accomplish these goals" which may be more effective than legislation, but you can bet that line will quickly be ignored by the politicians and lobbyists supporting this plan.

Filed Under: copyright, doit de suite, resale royaltes, us copyright office, visual arts


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 9:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I am not sure how you can tell me what the market expects to pay, but for arguments sake, If you would like to stream music there is a service called Rhapsody where you pay $10 a month and have unlimited streaming. That drops the price per song down below your price, regardless where you got that figure.


    Nah, I just use Youtube, is free.

    I think this is a very weak argument. Go to a torrent site get it for free and they don't limit what you can do with it? Imagine that. They don't create the content nor have any of the costs associated with producing it. I find this line of thinking refuses to acknowledge content cost money to make.

    Irrelevant, pirates show cased a fully working platform that embodies everything consumers want and the fact that so many people gravitate to it is doesn't bold well to contrary opinions, it doesn't matter if they produce anything, they will destroy any other different business model that doesn't follow that template.
    Morality should not be counted here, it doesn't matter if it did everybody would be justified to rip off producers because they shamessly rip off consumers all the time just because they can. Further there are ways to compete with "free" if there was not, there wouldn't be a Netflix, Youtube or any of the other dozen platforms that actually do it everyday see TV is free how they compete?

    I have never had to do this when watching a movie and I am sure neither have you.

    I never had because I block all Bluray access to the network, do you?

    BD Live 2.0
    Wikipedia: BD-J
    UltraViolet

    I am pretty sure that you probably have already given up very sensitive information without realizing it.


    Many of the complaints are valid but to "rip-off" the creator of content by not paying ANYTHING is not the solution. My responses came from this initial statement

    My counter argument is that people are more than willing to pay for it under a set of conditions that some creators don't want to accept and those will be ripped off, which in some conditions is actually helpful to the creator or copyright holder, there are multi millionaire book writers that make all that money despite "pirates" which actually help them enlarge their own markets, piracy may be bad for very big schemes where the only way is not up anymore but down.

    And finally show me how many content creators you know have gone banckrupt because of pirates, you be hard pressed to find a lot of those. Last I checked book writers still make millions, the movie industry is having the profits of their lifes and the music industry is rebounding from their self inflicted wound which they called "educational campaign against piracy".

    As I said already, however you want to justify getting something for nothing is entirely up to you. No, not everyone is doing it. To imply that you are speaking for the people when getting content for free is beyond hubris. Sure, the statutory damages are outrageous if applied to an individual but that was not their intent. They were designed to dissuade businesses from participating in these types of activities. Let us not forget the purpose of fines. Just like when breaking any other law they are meant to punish and deter conduct.

    The hubris is from the people that believe others are stupid and can't see what is happening, those laws have been modified a dozen times already and every time those shitty rules get upped a bit more. Sure if you want to dissuade anybody based on financial pain why not use a percentage of raw income? it would be equal to everyone , rich or poor, the pain would be the same.
    Now what happens when everyone and their dogs ignore the law? that is what happened to copyright, is not a law that anybody can take it seriously as it is written today, it doesn't reflect our times, it doesn't reflect social beliefs or behavior and it can't even be enforced, because if it was the public would quickly get loud.

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)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
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

Close

Email This

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