[gordy]

How can they stop anyone from listing on e-bay?

A year ago Nicks prints were £80 now £200-£300
with some as much as £700

Canvas £2000-£5000

Surely this is down to e-bay,forums and general word of mouth about the quality of his work etc......

[Strange Al]

Just so people don't get the two issues confused.

What the gallery is seeking to do is impose a contractual obligation on the buyers, which requires they pay a certain percentage of any resale price to the artist (as well as restricting sale on ebay). Effectively they are reserving certain rights in the sale of a copyright work, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Now there are questions whether the clause is enforceable, but if the buyer signs the contract then the gallery will have very good arguments that it is. Question whether the Gallery would actually go to the effort and expense of suing someone if they don't pay the royalty or stick the print on ebay, but they certainly could.

The Artist's Resale Right, which CBL has outlined, seeks to achieve the same thing as part of the clause. However, the contractual obligation the gallery is trying to impose exists separately to the ARR.

The ARR is derived from an EU directive and was implemented in the UK early last year. Essentially, it applies to the re-sale of artworks (including prints), which are sold by or with the assistance of "art market professionals" and have a value over 1000 Euros. It doesn't currently apply to private individuals selling privately.

ARR royalties are generally administered through a collecting society (DACs being the main one in the UK), rather than by the artists themselves. If you've got hundreds of prints in the market, you basically don't want to be chasing up sellers for your percentage of the resale price. I believe even Banksy is a member of DACs (despite the anti-copyright stance he took early in his career).

As things stand, there's some debate on what constitutes an "art market professional". Obviously, the galleries and auction houses are, but what about people buying art to sell on Ebay? Possibly - though only time will tell. Interestingly, a lot of sellers already build in a margin on sales to cover this cost - effectively pushing the expense on the buyers.

[tomhills1]

CBL if i say i surrender will you leave me alone, my head is banging and i haven't even read that legal mumbo jumbo. i'm just going on general principles of law and also what they call the spirit of the law, after all these cases would all be civil and not criminal: very expensive to bring to court unless it was to set a precedent in anumber of cases. if it were a one off thenit wouldn't be cost-effective.

please don't a: quote me and b: confuse me with more of that crap, that why those legal boffins charge about £75 an hour + VAT. w*nkers. sorry, rich w*nkers.

[stuey09]

The Laws an Ass ;D

[tomhills1]

the level of my articulation is astounding. (if i've even spelt any of that correctly). sunday drinking should not be a weekly occurrance

[Strange Al]

stuey09 said:

The Laws an Ass ;D

Maybe. Though this one is widely supported by the art community. After all, it's designed to benefit the artist.

[stuey09]

tomhills1 said:

the level of my articulation is astounding. (if i've even spelt any of that correctly). sunday drinking should not be a weekly occurrance

Well it can't be a daily occurrance ;D ;D ;D God i'm on fire tonight. Bring on the hecklers

[corblimeylimey]

Sorry lesbianwednesdays, didn't mean anything personal at all, I'm about to start my sunday drinking very soon, then we'll be eye to eye.

[Art-el]

Before we get into a witch hunt condeming Nick Walker. Can we establish exactly wheteher this came from him.

It's well known on here that I have a lot of time for Nick and his work. And it just doesn't add up for me. He's not that type of bloke.

I can't get hold of him at present but I'm sure the facts don't and won't be correct.

So before this post turns into judge, jury and executioner can we establish the fact's 100%

As for my opinion, It's laughable, certainly un policeable and not worth the paper it's written on.

[tomhills1]

bcfc said:

Before we get into a witch hunt condeming Nick Walker. Can we establish exactly wheteher this came from him.

It's well known on here that I have a lot of time for Nick and his work. And it just doesn't add up for me. He's not that type of bloke.

I can't get hold of him at present but I'm sure the facts don't and won't be correct.

So before this post turns into judge, jury and executioner can we establish the fact's 100%

As for my opinion, It's laughable, certainly un policeable and not worth the paper it's written on.

good point and a good point. i don't know much of nick walker but it would take a very arrogant man to ostracise one's-self in such a way. i'd be surprised if many artists would go down this route.

i hope we're all talking about the principle here rather than the artist in question?

CBL, i don't take any of it personally, not really in a fit state to , i'm just trying (badly) to play the old devil's advocate and that. crack one open my friend and get on it, don't know about eye to eye, more like eyes to eyes ;D (double vision, yeah?) ;D you know it's a bad'n when you have to explain it. sorry everyone.

[romanywg]

Is it April 1st?

[numusic]

hhmacbuyandsell said:

And you guys say that we are morons here in the US....that's the biggest load of bull I've ever heard. It also makes "mr walker" sound like a d-bag...but then again, mona simpson isn't exactly groundbreaking art...

Basically it's an ancient french law, intially set up to support artists, 99% of whom cannot afford to pay their mortgage or usually live in rented accommodation until the day they die.. now if some fat collector fuck is gonna buy to sell on..let's see some of that cash going back into art and not into his sports car colelction IMO.

It applies to books and CD's.. everytime a passage is published or a track played, the artist gets paid. Easy as.. they retian the intellectual rights to their own work. If you want a society with art, something to redress the balance and make the world a little better.. then you should support this. It's basically a union for artists...who normally get a pittance.

You're not buying "product", you're buying art...

Like someone mentioned, as far as I'm aware, it only applies to original work with a price of over 10k.

I'm all for it ! ;D

[Art-el]

Some people should be ashamed of themselves jumping on the band wagon and slaughtering someones good name without knowing the facts.

I have just spoken to Nick and he is absolutely livid 1) for the fact that this is NOT true and 2) for the way that some people have made this a personal attack on him.

After Nick had finished is commission for the Randall Scott Gallery, the owner asked Nick is if wanted to exert this clause, (which had been initiated by the RSG and Lucy McLaughan when they have worked together in the past), Nicks reply was that he believed art was for all and that he is a great believer in the secondary market (mind you I can't think of many artists that would be against it, it's kinda shooting yourself in foot by not believing in it). This was obviously misinterpreted and Nick has already contacted the gallery to say that he does not want his work to be part to this clause.

I hope this helps to clear things up and clarify Nicks position on this.

[jam]

I am glad to hear Nick's official position on the matter. I bought more than one Ghetto Ghost and didn't mind the clause on the invoice because I bought them to keep, I hardly ever sell anything and prefer trade if I must get rid of something (then only to get something else). Everything I read about Nick Walker gave me the impression he is a stand-up guy and I didn't really believe that nonsense was his doing.

[Art-el]

Numusic

As ever bang on the money. You are as always the voice of reason and good facts.

It would seem that the same people crucifying carpetbaggers should actually support this?

[dkla]

I agree Bombhugger - great point.

[Directed at nobody in particular] As a thousand forum members have said again and again, you have to first and foremost BUY WHAT YOU LIKE. Banksy's appeal is universal. His images are powerful, simple and laden with meaning (surface and deeper). He holds a mirror up to our society and he embarrasses us. And for good reason, and shame on us for not noticing it ourselves. He's frickin' stellar and we already all know that and that's why we're all here. It's a no-brainer to want to buy and keep Banksy's artwork. Some of us discovered him sooner than others, and good for us who did, 'cause boy did we have the pickings! But Banksy, being the incredible artist that he is, still is very adamant about continuing to keep his art accessible for the masses, thus POW. So everyone still has the chance to own a Banksy. Gotta love 'im.

If you're buying what you like (rule #1) and you're looking to add another layer to your purchase consideration (e.g., investment potential), then you need to do exactly what Bombhugger mentioned: imagine the art market 5 years from now (hell, imagine your own tastes 5 years from now) and decide whether you think you're still going to be wanting to look at that image in that time. Forget about standing the test of time, will that image/artist stand 5 years with you? If you answer yes, then don't second guess yourself -- you bought something nice for your wall and probably made a nice investment while you were at it, not that you care too much 'cause you love it anyway.

Otherwise, don't get caught up in the current madness and keep buying and buying and buying prints from every artist you hear of. 'Cause you're just going to wind up running out of wallspace, cash and your lady's patience The art market will look a LOT different 5 years from now. Buying art with reckless abandon will lead to empty pockets in the long run -- it's true, my friends.

There's no doubt we'll be talking about Banksy 50 years from now. Feel free to buy his art up with reckless abandon, just save some for me.

Curious to see what artists other forum members think will stand the "5 year test". I'll throw out Swoon, Espo, Barry McGee, Blek, Bast, Faile, Johansen and Invader for starters.

Also, Silky/AB - I find it ironic that "Banksy" doesn't pass the spellcheck in the Banksy Forum. We should probably change that, no?

Alright, enough ranting for one day and forgive me in the morning, please. It was a beautiful 78 degree day in New York City and I enjoyed some champagne outside in the sun. Well, "some" is an understatement...

[dkla]

manchestermike said:

mammal2 said:

Thats stupid. Aint never going to happen!

Think the point is, it is happening.

Nick Walker? "Black Mona" Nick Walker? Give me a break - this guy can't get away with it. He's NOWHERE NEAR the league of artist. Who the hell knows who he is, anyway -- POW fiends? Smells like a PR stunt to build hype/get folks talkin' to me. Don't fall for it...

[ABC]

Good post DKLA, as for artists standing the test of time IMO there will only be a handfull from todays collective left. My thoughts are that Banksy, Micallef, Matthew Small and possibly Conor Harrington will be the only ones left in the forefront. I like all the others but theres just no background in most of their works but the likes of the above mentioned have a growing following outside of just street art collectors which stops the whole frenzed buying by us lot and keeps the interest high by different collectors of modern art.

[carlito]

dkla ... if u look a couple of posts above you'll see Nick wants no part of this contract...

[taktheride]

its just silly.

[wildbill]

here's Nick's response from the other forum:

"To put the record straight - the 10% re sale right is not my bag. You can all buy my stuff and do what you want with it - I'll be grateful. The clause is something The Randall Scott Gallery originally created for Lucy Mclauchlan's work and I didn't make it clear that this shouldn't be included for my work. If anyone can make money out of reselling my work then that's great for you and for me....fair play. Anyone who knows me knows that this is not what I'm about. Nick"

sounds like Nick is a good guy who has his head in the right place.

[Strange Al]

jjoschi44 said:

Just so people don't get the two issues confused.

What the gallery is seeking to do is impose a contractual obligation on the buyers, which requires they pay a certain percentage of any resale price to the artist (as well as restricting sale on ebay). Effectively they are reserving certain rights in the sale of a copyright work, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Now there are questions whether the clause is enforceable, but if the buyer signs the contract then the gallery will have very good arguments that it is. Question whether the Gallery would actually go to the effort and expense of suing someone if they don't pay the royalty or stick the print on ebay, but they certainly could.

The Artist's Resale Right, which CBL has outlined, seeks to achieve the same thing as part of the clause. However, the contractual obligation the gallery is trying to impose exists separately to the ARR.

The ARR is derived from an EU directive and was implemented in the UK early last year. Essentially, it applies to the re-sale of artworks (including prints), which are sold by or with the assistance of "art market professionals" and have a value over 1000 Euros. It doesn't currently apply to private individuals selling privately.

ARR royalties are generally administered through a collecting society (DACs being the main one in the UK), rather than by the artists themselves. If you've got hundreds of prints in the market, you basically don't want to be chasing up sellers for your percentage of the resale price. I believe even Banksy is a member of DACs (despite the anti-copyright stance he took early in his career).

As things stand, there's some debate on what constitutes an "art market professional". Obviously, the galleries and auction houses are, but what about people buying art to sell on Ebay? Possibly - though only time will tell. Interestingly, a lot of sellers already build in a margin on sales to cover this cost - effectively pushing the expense on the buyers.

In terms of the Arist's Resale Right - I'm 100% with Nu on this one. This is a piece of European legislation, which was introduced for the benefit of artists and is widely supported by the art community. Including by Banksy - he is a member of DACs and collects royalties on the resale of his works.

I really don't see how anyone can begrudge an artist a small percentage of any resale of their works. After all, it is the artist that has invested their time, heart and soul in a piece of work. Like Nu says, most struggle to make a living.

In terms of the legal position, I re-iterate the points in my post above. The ARR and the contractual obligation which the gallery is seeking to impose are separate issues - although seeking to achieve similar aims. I have no qualms about either.

[bombshelter]

billiam said:

here's Nick's response from the other forum:

"To put the record straight - the 10% re sale right is not my bag. You can all buy my stuff and do what you want with it - I'll be grateful. The clause is something The Randall Scott Gallery originally created for Lucy Mclauchlan's work and I didn't make it clear that this shouldn't be included for my work. If anyone can make money out of reselling my work then that's great for you and for me....fair play. Anyone who knows me knows that this is not what I'm about. Nick"

sounds like Nick is a good guy who has his head in the right place.

Nicks No Cu*t,
He is a top top bloke ,i think the above says it all!!
hes one of the best artists to buy work off too, so friendly to do business with.. ;D

[ABC]

billiam said:

here's Nick's response from the other forum:

"To put the record straight - the 10% re sale right is not my bag. You can all buy my stuff and do what you want with it - I'll be grateful. The clause is something The Randall Scott Gallery originally created for Lucy Mclauchlan's work and I didn't make it clear that this shouldn't be included for my work. If anyone can make money out of reselling my work then that's great for you and for me....fair play. Anyone who knows me knows that this is not what I'm about. Nick"

sounds like Nick is a good guy who has his head in the right place.

Can't get much clearer than than can you.

[Art-el]

billiam said:

WTF!! Its not stock, theres no dividends, no residual benefits for the artist. Its art for Fu*#s sake! Not a 401K plan.

Nick shoud be happy that people are buying his work at all. The last thing he needs to be doing right now is biting the hands that are feeding him and try to squeeze out some extra penny's. GREEDY NONSENSE!

There's thousands of great artist out there that have work better than his that would be stoked to sell a single piece for half of what his sh*t sells for.

Bill

What a spineless individual you are. On the back of total hearsay you were happy to post (on a public forum) that NW should in someway be grateful that people buy his work for the price they do and his work is sh*t.

Then you find out that it was not in fact the case that he asked for this sell on clause.

You are now posting messages in his defence, laughable.

And if you feel the need to apologise or defend yourself then why not do it in the same forum that you labelled his work sh*t rather than PM me the following lame arsed excuse.

"really sorry if i dragged nick's good name through the dirt.

I have a vivid imagination and can be over passionate some times. It appears that I shamefully got caught up in the he said she said without knowing all the facts. Now that I've read the rest of the thread and know the facts, I wish i could erase my post so as not to tarnish Nick's good name.

I've been disgusted lately with the actions of a certain US based artist that has been overcome by greed and who is an absolute hipocrat. He steals other peoples ideas and exploits just causes only to mass manufacture them for the sake of increasing his wealth and his great name. It disgust me! I can see that I may have projected some of that anger wrongly on this thread.

I'm glad to hear that Nick is such a great guy and I have a very high opinion of him now. I love art absolutely but the person behind the art, to me is just as important. I do not want to support anyone who is not a good person. Nick is absolutely on point with his belief."


Bill

Sad, very very sad

[goffy]

When I have dealt with Nick Walker he has always been a stand up guy and it's been a pleasure to do business with him. I am glad all the nonsense has been cleared up and maybe a lesson has been learned.

[Art-el]

Hear Hear

Normal service resumed.

People really do need to remember that to have an opinion on hearsay is fine, to slaughter someone when not armed with the full FACTs is way out of order.

[carlito]

normal service resumed

I find the attacks on Nick mystifying - jeeeez

[dmandpenfold]

corblimeylimey said:

From one of my above links...

"Only disposals for a value in excess of €1,000 where the parties are acting in the course of a business, will be affected."

isnt this a key phrase 'acting in the course of a business' ? If it's what i think it means it shouldnt really affect ordinary punters who would be conducting private sales

-Just edited the rest of my post after reading some of the later explanations on here i missed whilst typing my original.

net result just the comment above, which might protect us a little from the carpet baggers

[BME]

I'm a fan of Nick's work and have no particular problem with the proposed clause but I suspect that, for practical reasons, it will be unenforceable. If the work is sold in breach of the terms of the contract the gallery will be in the awkward position of determining whether or not to sue the original buyer. The costs of launching legal proceedings would far outweigh the benefits of any possible recovery; legal action would also risk damaging the reputation of the gallery. Anyway, the clause is easy enough to step around - if the item were traded/ given as a gift it could later be sold for its full value by the new owner who would generally not be bound by the terms of any agreement between the gallery and the original purchaser.