The Australian government recently announced that it would not support the 2006 Artist’s Resale Rights Bill. Of course this now slightly changes the direction of my research assignment, as when I began, the government had not made such a decision. Therefore, I will now look at this as a way in which to judge whether or not the government has made the right decision in respect to supporting Australia’s visual artists. This week’s entry explores two websites. One is a submission paper from Watters Gallery in Sydney, in full support of the royalty scheme; the second is a more recent update from Freehills which offers reasons why the government failed to pass the bill. Together they should offer an interesting dichotomy on the topic of resale royality rights for visual artists.
Submission Paper – An Australian Resale Royalty
The Watters Gallery is very much pro-resale royalty rights. Simply put, the gallery is in favour as they believe it is the right of the artists and that implementing the scheme would not cause any real hardship to any party. From their perspective, an artist should own the right for all successive sales of their work/s. Their submission makes reference to France’s Droite de Suite (which Watters Gallery follows) and its success for 84 years. Suggested cost scales are given, as are suggested models (from Europe) as well as the recommended period of duration – life + 70 years. Watters believes that all art works should be covered and that there should be no discussion into over what constitutes a work of art.
If such a scheme were to be introduced, there would be a need for one organisation or institution to administer the royalties. Watters does not suggest any specific organisations and I would be interested to research more into this. Finally, the submission paper concludes with the statement that resale royalties should have negligible negative effects and that it would essentially be a great promotion of Australian art. Indeed this reference is brief, however it should serve as a good platform to further my research into this issue.
Freehills – Artist Resale Rights Shelved
The Artist’s Resale Rights Bill 2006 – if passed, would have offered royalties to artists on the resale of graphic or plastic art (also includes sculptures, glassware & photographs). However, in August 2006, the government decided not to support the bill. The stand-out reasons for this seemed to be that a resale royalty right would not offer, “a meaningful source of income for the majority of Australia’s artists.” Their justification for this was the following: a) most works by Australian artists do not reach the secondary market; b) the bill would have adversely affected those in the business of art, such as art dealers, auction houses, commercial galleries, etc; and c) the royalty scheme would have been more likely to benefit successful late career artists as well as the estates of deceased artists.
Agreeably, these seem like some justifiable points on the government’s behalf. But are they just going to let Australia’s visual artists to live in so-called ‘poverty?’ Apparently not. The government has put in place their own (more ‘suitable’) alternative to the Artist’s Resale Rights Bill. This entails providing 6 million dollars over 4 years to support visual artists including: a) a $500,000 yearly package to assist artists to tap into the commercial market; and b) an additional $1,000,000 each year to the National Arts & Crafts Industry Support program aimed at the indigenous arts industry.
Next week I hope to analyse the working models of Artists Resale Rights Programs in Europe and compare them the government’s reasons for not passing the bill in Australia. This should provide for some interesting pros and cons on the issue.
The Websites:
Watters Gallery Submission Paper
www.dcita.gov.au
Freehills Update
www.freehills.com.au/publications/publications_6093.asp