The websites regarding resale royalties for Australian artists are divided into three main categories:
1. Parliament/government websites addressing the issues of why the scheme was denied.
2. Papers published by arts organisations or individuals as a study of how a resale royalty program could be beneficial/detrimental to artists, organisations, galleries, etc.
3. Popular media discussions of the debate.
The first source in my extended URLography is the homepage to Senator Rod Kemp, minister of the arts and sport. This page (published May 2006) New Support for Australia’s Visual Artists, talks of Senator Kemp’s initiative of $6 million towards the budget 2006-07 as an alternative for the resale royalty scheme. Senator Kemp describes how $0.5 million will be put towards a training program for Australian artists to “enhance their engagement within the contemporary arts market,” while $1 million will go to strengthening the indigenous arts industry. His grounds for denying the royalty rights scheme is based on the fact that research suggests the scheme would only be helpful to artists who are already quite advanced / already successful in their careers. This seems to be a common link between all the government websites. From the research I have found regarding how the scheme works in other countries (particularly Europe), Australia seems to be too scared to step towards new ground. However, one benefit of the government’s decision is the fact that they are encouraging an extension of the term of copyright and the release of a public tax ruling on what it means to be carrying on an arts business.
Senator Rod Kemp
The second additional source is from a website of a study done by Caslon Analytics, an internet research, analysis and strategies consultancy. This page, droite de suite in Australia, (droite de suite means a royalty for visual artists on the resale of artists) considers many aspects of the debate. The first statement, despite the lengthy information on the site states that Australian does not have a droite de suite and the adoption of one appears unlikely. Thus they seemed somewhat bias already from the get-go. However, further analysis of the page shows quite the opposite. Caslon traces the issue from the late 80s when the Australian Copyright Council published a paper entitled ‘The Art Resale Royalty and Its Implications for Australia.’ In this publication the ACC supported the scheme as “as a mechanism for encouraging creative endeavour by rewarding visual artists with a share in the increasing value of their creative product.” The study definitely makes one think a droite de suite would be beneficial given their research that demonstrates 50% of Australian artists make less than $7,300 per year on their art – hardly an amount to live on! However, as this website is based on reporting rather than critiquing, it concludes with the statement that the government denied the scheme with the same reasons covered as above (on Senator Kemp’s webpage). This page did mention two books that I think will be beneficial for the essay: Annette Van des Bosch’s The Australian Art World: Aesthetics in a Global Market and Patricia Anderson’s Art & Australia: Debates, Dollars and Delusions.
Caslon Analytics
Link to website: Caslon Analytics
The third additional source is from Peter Garrett's Homepage (Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts – Labor Party). It represents quite a different perspective to many of the other sources I have found as Garrett focuses more on the resale royalty scheme in terms of its effect primarily on Indigenous Australian artists. This particular link is to his speech delivered on June 14 2006 entitled ‘Consideration in Detail: Resale Royalty.’ Garrett implies that the government’s $6 million initiative (of which $4 million would go to Aboriginal art centres) is a joke when studies show that a resale royalty scheme would offer benefits of between $20 to $25 million to these Indigenous artists. Included on this page is a rebuttal by the Minister for Workforce Participation who claims that the funding would be more beneficial as support for Indigenous art PROGRAMS rather than individual ARTISTS. My own difficulty with accepting this idea is how successful these programs will be at divvying the funds so individual artists will benefit in some kind of equal manner. He concludes his rebuttal with the statement that neither the US or Switzerland has adopted a resale royalty scheme for their visual artists.
Link to website: Peter Garrett
My final additional source was perhaps the most refreshing to read – it is the transcript from an ABC Radio National arts program entitled ‘Stretching the Canvas: Investing in Art in Australia.’ The discussion included Gerald Tooth – producer, Michael Reid – art market analyst for The Australian, Geoff Cassidy – Head of Australian Paintings and Deputy Director of Sotheby’s, Stuart Purvis – President of the Australian Commercial Galleries Association, Brian Kino – art consulter and gallery owner, Mary Lou Jelbart – Director of performance space and gallery, Joanna Mendelson – professor of COFA, John Stringer – director of Kerry Stokes collection, Tamara Winikoff – director of NAVA, Heather Winter – artist and curator of indigenous art and Tim Klingender – director of Aboriginal Art at Sotheby’s. This is an extremely long discussion and in the interest of word count I will cover it briefly – perhaps discussing it more in next week’s posting. Thus I will skip all the general commentary on the contemporary art market in Australian and focus on their diccussion of the droite de suite. Winikoff makes a statement about the decline in the level of artist’s incomes by over 16% in ten years – she suggests that this has become an issue that needs to be rectified. What is particularly ‘perverse’ is that contemporary Australian art is selling for record prices but the artists are getting less – the profits are going to the dealers and galleries. Tooth then brings up the topic of the success of the droite de suite in France – artists are given 1% to 5% of the sale price of their work every time it is sold, regardless of whether it’s in the first or secondary market. The law was adopted by the European Union in 2005. Heather Winter paints a negative light on the absence of such a scheme for Indigenous artists. There are many cases where an original work is sold for $5,000 dollars then sold later on the market for sometimes more than $100,000 – but the artists receives none of that resale money. The main problem that seems to exist is that there are very different situations for Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists which makes for adopting one central scheme very difficult. This is an extremely engaging discussion and the fact that so many individuals with very different backgrounds are involved has made it one of the most informative sources I have found so far.
Link to website: ABC transcript