49:
203:(CRRA), (Civil Code section 986), applied to all works of fine art resold in California, or resold anywhere by a California resident, for a gross sale of $ 1000 or more. It had mandated a five percent royalty on the resale price of any work of fine art. An artist was able to waive this right "by a contract in writing providing for an amount in excess of five percent of the amount of such sale." It was the only law of its kind implemented in the United States. At least one scholar has proposed that this law is unconstitutional in that it effects a Fifth Amendment taking of private property.
227:. Under its clear terms, the CRRA regulates transactions occurring anywhere in the United States, so long as the seller resides in California. Even the artist---the intended beneficiary of the CRRA---does not have to be a citizen of, or reside in, California....Therefore, the CRRA violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
274:
if the creator chooses (on a case by case basis) it can be paid directly to the creator, on resales made during their lifetime and to their heirs for resales made up to 70 years after the creator's death. The primary legal obligation to pay the royalty rests on the seller. However, in economic terms,
298:
The
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 8293) gives the author/artist or his heirs a 5-percent share in the gross proceeds of the sale or lease of the original painting, sculpture, or manuscript, subsequent to its first disposition by the creator. This right exists during the
286:
The introduction of the scheme was controversial, as it has been elsewhere. During the first three years of its operation, royalty payments totaling $ 1.5m were made to about 650 artists for 6,800 transactions, with about 50% going to
Indigenous artists. The highest individual royalty was A$ 50,000.
266:
The Resale
Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act 2009 gives the creator of an artwork the right to receive a royalty when their work is resold on the commercial art market. For artworks already in existence at 9 June 2010, the royalty applies only to the second and subsequent resales after that date.
278:
Eligible artworks include original works of graphic or plastic art, including pictures, collages, paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, tapestries, ceramics, glassware, photographs, fine art textiles, installations, fine art jewellery, artists' books, carvings and
247:, which would give artists a percentage of the amount paid for a work each time it is resold by another party." A follow-up bill was introduced in 2014, the American Royalties Too Act, and was vigorously opposed by auction houses. The bill died in committee.
73:
was first proposed in Europe around 1893, in response to a decrease in the importance of the salon, the end of the private patron, and to champion the cause of the "starving artist". Many artists, and their families, had suffered from the war, and
218:
of their works of art under certain circumstances. The ruling by Judge
Jacqueline H. Nguyen of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, is pending appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Nguyen added:
282:
The royalty is restricted to
Australian citizens or residents, though there is provision for reciprocal rights to be extended in the future to persons resident in other jurisdictions with compatible royalty schemes.
267:
Under clauses 22 and 23 of the act artists have a case by case right to instruct the appointed government agency the
Copyright Agency Ltd, to not collect and/or make their own individual collection arrangements.
258:—which does not recognize an artist's right to resale royalties. Now, only works resold from January 1, 1977 to January 1, 1978, when the Copyright Act became effective, are eligible for the royalty payment.
48:
206:
The
California Resale Royalty Act, was struck down as unconstitutional on May 17, 2012, because it violated the US Constitution Interstate Commerce clause, ending a 35-year run that entitled
120:
of 1971 enshrines authors' and artists' "inalienable right to an interest" in a resale of their work, but has no legal force in the absence of national legislation implementing it.
251:
525:
235:
published a "Notice of
Inquiry" regarding establishing an artist "resale royalty right" in the US. The Notice was published in response to a request by Representative
243:, who had introduced droit de suite legislation in 2011. The Copyright Office's subsequent report endorsed "congressional consideration of a resale royalty right, or
270:
The royalty is calculated as 5% of the sale price, but does not apply where that price is less than $ 1,000. It is payable, via an official collecting agency,
36:
or their heirs, in some jurisdictions, to receive a fee on the resale of their works of art. This should be contrasted with policies such as the
American
612:
351:"The concept of a droit de suite for visual artists was introduced by Albert Vaunois in an article in the Chronique de Paris in 1893..." (pp. 8-9)
163:
law, which implements directive 2001/84/EC. During discussions in the French
Parliament leading to this law, it was argued that in practice, the
159:, this system has been in force since 1920 through article L122-8 of the Code of intellectual property. It will be reformed by article 48 of the
656:
461:
517:
308:
200:
287:
Most recipients have received amounts ranging from A$ 50 to A$ 500. The average transaction cost is reportedly $ 30 AU.
852:
689:"Ending a Seven-Year Dispute, a US Court Rules That Artists Aren't Entitled to Royalties for Artworks Resold at Auction"
546:
688:
82:
103:. The owner of the painting made a huge profit from this sale, whereas the family of the artist lived in poverty.
132:
129:
90:
58:
428:
847:
842:
95:
53:
255:
232:
62:
573:
438:
396:
313:
37:
362:
630:
664:
499:
495:
457:
191:
The Artist's Resale Right (ARR) was enacted in the UK in 2006 to implement the EU Directive.
183:) is to set degressive rates and maximal fees so that the Paris marketplace is not hindered.
117:
818:
211:
25:
335:"Proposed international treaty on droit de suite/resale royalty right for visual artists"
494:
Barker, Emily (10 December 2009). "The California Resale Royalty Act: Droit De Suite".
236:
144:
140:
836:
474:"California Civil Code Section 986 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws"
176:
100:
518:"Should Artists Get Royalties if Their Work Is Resold? Europe Says Yes, US Says No"
473:
40:, where artists do not have the right to control or profit from subsequent sales.
799:
426:
Code de la propriété intellectuelle : Chapitre II : Droits patrimoniaux
559:
223:
The Court finds that the CRRA explicitly regulates applicable sales of fine art
668:
547:"BLOG: Federal Court Finds California Resale Royalties Act Unconstitutional"
334:
240:
254:
ruled that the California Resale Royalties Act is preempted by the federal
380:
168:
299:
lifetime of the author or artist and fifty years after his/her death.
215:
207:
180:
172:
160:
156:
57:
was sold by Millet for 1,000 francs in 1865, but just 14 years after
33:
171:, and that it thus disfavors the Paris art marketplace compared to
781:
377:
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
47:
657:"California Tried to Give Artists a Cut. But the Judges Said No"
756:
731:
713:
817:
Department of Communications and the Arts (8 August 2016).
454:
Artist's Resale Right (Droit de Suite): UK Law and Practice
562:, U.S. Copyright Office (last visited October 24, 2012).
179:. Following DADVSI, a government regulation (through a
78:
was a means to remedy socially difficult situations.
581:. Office of the Register of Copyrights. pp. 3–5
61:'s death in 1889 it was sold by the copper merchant
290:A review of the scheme was announced in June 2013.
489:
487:
275:it may effectively be passed on to the purchaser.
613:"Lobbyists Set to Fight Royalty Bill for Artists"
16:Right granted to artists to receive resale fee
631:"S.2045 - American Royalties Too Act of 2014"
8:
89:was created in France following the sale of
252:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
714:"Australasian Legal Information Institute"
143:. This directive is controversial in the
598:
325:
135:mandates a somewhat uniform system of
575:Resale Royalties: An Updated Analysis
511:
509:
7:
782:"Copyright Agency - Royalty Resale"
225:occurring wholly outside California
397:"'Droit de Suite' Debate Heats Up"
14:
409:Tom Flynn, Letter to the editor,
395:Grant, Daniel (11 January 2012).
655:Svachula, Amanda (2018-07-11).
528:from the original on 2018-07-13
309:California Resale Royalties Act
201:California Resale Royalties Act
611:Cohen, Patricia (2014-03-24).
1:
516:Grant, Daniel (2018-07-13).
333:Ricketson, Sam (June 2015).
30:Artist's Resale Right (ARR)
869:
83:Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres
28:for "right to follow") or
761:Journal of ART in SOCIETY
786:www.resaleroyalty.org.au
572:Pallante, Maria (2013).
819:"Resale Royalty Scheme"
231:In September 2012, the
732:"The Copyright Agency"
560:"Resale Royalty Right"
439:Assemblee-nationale.fr
411:London Review of Books
363:Assemblee-nationale.fr
279:multi-media artworks.
229:
93:'s 1858 painting, the
66:
32:is a right granted to
456:, 3rd edition, 2017,
250:On July 6, 2018, the
233:U.S. Copyright Office
221:
51:
800:"Question on Notice"
853:Art and culture law
416::1 (7 January 2021)
314:First-sale doctrine
38:first-sale doctrine
718:www.austlii.edu.au
661:The New York Times
637:. 26 February 2014
67:
65:for 553,000 francs
99:, in 1889 at the
860:
827:
826:
814:
808:
807:
796:
790:
789:
778:
772:
771:
769:
767:
753:
747:
746:
744:
742:
736:Copyright Agency
728:
722:
721:
710:
704:
703:
701:
700:
685:
679:
678:
676:
675:
652:
646:
645:
643:
642:
627:
621:
620:
608:
602:
596:
590:
589:
587:
586:
580:
569:
563:
557:
551:
550:
543:
537:
536:
534:
533:
513:
504:
503:
491:
482:
481:
470:
464:
450:
444:
443:
436:
430:
423:
417:
407:
401:
400:
392:
386:
374:
368:
367:
360:
354:
353:
348:
346:
330:
167:is only paid at
118:Berne Convention
868:
867:
863:
862:
861:
859:
858:
857:
833:
832:
831:
830:
823:www.arts.gov.au
816:
815:
811:
798:
797:
793:
780:
779:
775:
765:
763:
755:
754:
750:
740:
738:
730:
729:
725:
712:
711:
707:
698:
696:
687:
686:
682:
673:
671:
654:
653:
649:
640:
638:
629:
628:
624:
610:
609:
605:
597:
593:
584:
582:
578:
571:
570:
566:
558:
554:
545:
544:
540:
531:
529:
515:
514:
507:
493:
492:
485:
472:
471:
467:
451:
447:
441:
437:
433:
424:
420:
408:
404:
394:
393:
389:
379:, Paris, 1971,
375:
371:
365:
361:
357:
344:
342:
332:
331:
327:
322:
305:
296:
264:
212:royalty payment
197:
189:
153:
126:
114:
109:
46:
17:
12:
11:
5:
866:
864:
856:
855:
850:
845:
835:
834:
829:
828:
809:
804:www.aph.gov.au
791:
773:
748:
723:
705:
680:
647:
622:
617:New York Times
603:
591:
564:
552:
549:. 21 May 2012.
538:
505:
483:
478:law.onecle.com
465:
452:Simon Stokes,
445:
431:
418:
402:
387:
369:
355:
324:
323:
321:
318:
317:
316:
311:
304:
301:
295:
292:
263:
260:
245:droit de suite
237:Jerrold Nadler
196:
193:
188:
187:United Kingdom
185:
165:droit de suite
152:
149:
145:United Kingdom
141:European Union
137:droit de suite
125:
124:European Union
122:
113:
110:
108:
105:
87:droit de suite
76:droit de suite
71:droit de suite
45:
42:
21:Droit de suite
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
865:
854:
851:
849:
848:Law of France
846:
844:
843:Copyright law
841:
840:
838:
824:
820:
813:
810:
805:
801:
795:
792:
787:
783:
777:
774:
762:
758:
752:
749:
737:
733:
727:
724:
719:
715:
709:
706:
694:
690:
684:
681:
670:
666:
662:
658:
651:
648:
636:
632:
626:
623:
618:
614:
607:
604:
601:, p. 10.
600:
599:Pallante 2013
595:
592:
577:
576:
568:
565:
561:
556:
553:
548:
542:
539:
527:
523:
519:
512:
510:
506:
501:
497:
490:
488:
484:
479:
475:
469:
466:
463:
462:1-903987-40-7
459:
455:
449:
446:
440:
435:
432:
429:
427:
422:
419:
415:
412:
406:
403:
398:
391:
388:
385:
384:
378:
373:
370:
364:
359:
356:
352:
340:
336:
329:
326:
319:
315:
312:
310:
307:
306:
302:
300:
293:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
273:
268:
261:
259:
257:
256:Copyright Act
253:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
228:
226:
220:
217:
213:
209:
204:
202:
195:United States
194:
192:
186:
184:
182:
178:
177:New York City
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
150:
148:
146:
142:
138:
134:
131:
123:
121:
119:
112:International
111:
106:
104:
102:
101:Secretan sale
98:
97:
92:
88:
84:
81:According to
79:
77:
72:
64:
60:
56:
55:
50:
43:
41:
39:
35:
31:
27:
23:
22:
822:
812:
803:
794:
785:
776:
764:. Retrieved
760:
751:
739:. Retrieved
735:
726:
717:
708:
697:. Retrieved
695:. 2018-07-09
692:
683:
672:. Retrieved
660:
650:
639:. Retrieved
635:Congress.gov
634:
625:
616:
606:
594:
583:. Retrieved
574:
567:
555:
541:
530:. Retrieved
521:
477:
468:
453:
448:
434:
425:
421:
413:
410:
405:
390:
382:
376:
372:
358:
350:
343:. Retrieved
338:
328:
297:
289:
285:
281:
277:
271:
269:
265:
249:
244:
239:and Senator
230:
224:
222:
205:
198:
190:
164:
154:
136:
127:
115:
94:
86:
80:
75:
70:
68:
52:
29:
20:
19:
18:
693:Artnet News
442:(in French)
366:(in French)
294:Philippines
139:across the
107:Legislation
54:The Angelus
837:Categories
699:2021-05-17
674:2021-05-17
641:2015-03-07
585:2015-03-07
532:2021-05-17
381:Article 14
320:References
130:2001/84/EC
669:0362-4331
339:cisac.org
262:Australia
241:Herb Kohl
214:upon the
199:The 1977
133:directive
741:10 April
526:Archived
522:Observer
303:See also
169:auctions
63:Secrétan
500:1663016
341:. CISAC
208:artists
96:Angélus
44:History
34:artists
766:6 June
757:"Home"
667:
498:
460:
345:7 June
216:resale
181:decree
173:London
161:DADVSI
157:France
151:France
91:Millet
59:Millet
26:French
579:(PDF)
210:to a
768:2013
743:2012
665:ISSN
496:SSRN
458:ISBN
347:2024
128:The
116:The
69:The
383:ter
175:or
155:In
839::
821:.
802:.
784:.
759:.
734:.
716:.
691:.
663:.
659:.
633:.
615:.
524:.
520:.
508:^
486:^
476:.
414:43
349:.
337:.
272:or
147:.
85:,
825:.
806:.
788:.
770:.
745:.
720:.
702:.
677:.
644:.
619:.
588:.
535:.
502:.
480:.
399:.
24:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
