[sausageboonwee]

Apparently this has been suggested in the UK and may be introduced here generally. That's all I've heard, I have no doubt someone will add to this. I certainly hope so.

[affart]

Wheres the link on Nicks site ??
Cheers

[affart]

Cool found it, cheers fella.

[Run Pig Run]

if his work wasn't bought to sell he would never be doing so well today. while the artist may feel a little uncomfortable with people buying just to sell it's probably best they keep thier mouth shut because in five years time this could all be over.

[Daniel Silk]

bombhugger said:

if his work wasn't bought to sell he would never be doing so well today. while the artist may feel a little uncomfortable with people buying just to sell it's probably best they keep thier mouth shut because in five years time this could all be over.

Yeah, Im with you on this one loads of competition going on this year so artists cant be picky on who's buying and for what reasons

[affart]

Lots of competition!

[mose]

passed to me by a friend. This is in reference to the Ghetto Ghost Edition:


""An invoice will be generated and sent to you on PDF. On the invoice is a Resale Clause. This clause will state that Mr. Walker is entitled to 10% of any future resale of the print and that the print at no time may be placed on e-bay or a similar auction site.

You will be required to sign the contract and then fax it back. Please keep a copy and then you must mail the original contract back to the Gallery.

The print will be released once the Faxed copy arrives, the gallery will allow 7 days for the fax to arrive. After which the print will be made available to the next person, with no extension.

We are sorry, demand is high, only 10 prints will be made available to the UK, and we are quite serious about the resale of the prints. "

[corblimeylimey]

Is this anything to do with the EU art law known as droit de suite? ((Artist's Resale Right) whereby any future sale of art over a certain amount a percentage of the sale goes to the artist (with capping).

It's all very complicated and although law in most of the EU for a few years, Britain has only recently signed up to this and won't be law here for another year I think. Didn't think it included the US though.

Rough outline here,

www.walkermorris.co.uk/content.aspx?id=308

Put on your reading glasses and sit your self down in a comfy chair, lots of heavy reading here....

www.artscouncil.org.uk/documents/publications/325.pdf

www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/resaleroyaltyright/28859.htm

www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2006-01-24b.1142.5

If someone can be bothered to read through that lot and then put it into simple terms here, then hats off to you.

[beejoir1]

It sounds full of shit to me, I'd wipe my ass on the paper and send it back to the gallery, damn.... I might just do that!

[manchestermike]

beejoir1 said:

It sounds full of s**t to me, I'd wipe my ass on the paper and send it back to the gallery, damn.... I might just do that!

Summed it up perfectly there Chris

[mammal2]

Thats stupid. Aint never going to happen!

[manchestermike]

mammal2 said:

Thats stupid. Aint never going to happen!

Think the point is, it is happening.

[notitle]

what a load of shite. i don't know how the law has ever been enforced anywhere?

i respect that the artist has put a lot of time and effort into creating their own original work, but you sell it at a price you are happy with, then it's the customers property as far as i'm concerned. it's not like someone is copying it and selling knock-offs.

does the same apply to selling books or cds?

[dwight]

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...

[bombshelter]

beejoir1 said:

It sounds full of s**t to me, I'd wipe my ass on the paper and send it back to the gallery, damn.... I might just do that!

That's funny as F**k..lol

[beejoir1]

bombshelter said:

beejoir1 said:

It sounds full of s**t to me, I'd wipe my ass on the paper and send it back to the gallery, damn.... I might just do that!

That's funny as F**k..lol

I'm not joking, poncy twats like this need to be sorted out! You sell something ...... its SOLD gone and has nothing to do with you.

Where can I get one of these faxes???

[ABC]

bigman said:

Was wondering peoples opinions there is a post on nick walkers forum about there being a "clause" in the invoices of nicks work in the states. that if sold on a % of the sell on fee would be given back to nick? can anyone shead a little more light on this and opinions? seems a little odd and totally unpoliceable.
And does it matter?
Should they try and stop it?
Any ideas how to?

To be honest to him, its EU law in art nowadays that if you sell on an original and you was the initial purchaser you are required to pay the artist back a percentage (4% I think). If you sell through auctions (Bonham's etc etc) this happens already. Ebay are looking at this too but I cannot imagine how they would ever do it.

[nombei]

interesting. i don't see how the resale of an item can be regulated like this, but i suppose if you sign a contract and agree to the terms then you should honor the contract.

[beejoir1]

I'll take my 4% in beer please!!!

[corblimeylimey]

The weird thing is Nick isn't really in a strong resale position, the Black Monas are hardly reaching cost price on ebay and one of our forum members, buddings, made a £160 loss before fees on his AP Baby Moll! ( 120106944471 )

banksyforum.proboards82.com/index.cgi?board=ebaychat&action=display&thread=1174302728

When this sort of thing happens will Nick pay a percentage of the loss? ;D

[pezlow]

I think the EU law only applies to pieces worth over £10,000. And if you got 10K for Ghetto Ghost you probably wouldn't worry too much about giving 10% back to nick.

[arcam]

beejoir1 said:

It sounds full of s**t to me, I'd wipe my ass on the paper and send it back to the gallery, damn.... I might just do that!

It's a load of bollocks alright. Once something is sold, the individual should be free to do with it what he or she likes. If someone is willing to support an artist by buying their work, why shouldn't they profit if the value of said work increases several years later? For f**k sake, it's no different to someone building a house, selling it for £100K only for it to be worth £1Million a few years laters. It's tough s**t.

*end of rant * Sorry but that takes the biscuit.

[corblimeylimey]

pezlow said:

I think the EU law only applies to pieces worth over £10,000. And if you got 10K for Ghetto Ghost you probably wouldn't worry too much about giving 10% back to nick.

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. In addition, the disposal will not be regarded as a "resale" where the seller acquired the work within the previous three years and the subsequent sale price is for less than €10,000.

The royalty is calculated as a percentage of the resale price, with a tapering scale starting at four per cent for works valued to €50,000 (net) and decreasing to 0.25 per cent for the proportion of resales over €500,000. The maximum permitted royalty payment on any one sale is €12,500. Responsibility for payment vests with the reseller and one art market professional, typically the seller’s agent, though it could be the buyer’s agent where there is no seller’s agent. VAT is not payable on the resale royalties."

[ABC]

I thought it only applied to originals too and not prints

[tomhills1]

the lst two posts sum it up perfectly, apart from beejoir's first (i'd love to see that fax!), a: it has to be over £10k and i also think it has to be within a certain time period, though don't quote me on that and b: once it's gone it's gone. end of. we can all look back at POW prices back in the day and see where those values are at now, even the current banksy's are under-priced. but to try to second-guess the futere market and insert some kind of covenant is just insane and like has already been pointed out - un-enforcable.

good luck though nick.

in fact, surely just signing (or deficating beejoir), isn't a legally binding contract? to my knowledge, you have to have a couple of witnesses, possibly independant too, to qualify as a contract?

kind of takes away somewhat the essence of art as a freedom of expression.

[wildbill]

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.

[corblimeylimey]

abcollings said:

I thought it only applied to originals too and not prints

All the facts are in the links I posted but I don't blame anyone for not reading them as they're pretty boring.

"The type of artistic works covered by the Regulations, are extensive covering ceramics, glassware and jewellery as well as the more obvious types of fine art. However, the right will only apply in respect of works that are limited in number, so that, for example, mass produced items will fall outside the ambit of the Regulations."

[corblimeylimey]

tomhills1 said:

the lst two posts sum it up perfectly, apart from beejoir's first (i'd love to see that fax!), a: it has to be over £10k and i also think it has to be within a certain time period, though don't quote me on that

Sorry to ignore your no quote request ;D

FYI

"In keeping with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the resale right lasts for the life of the artist plus 70 years save that although the right is transferable upon death, neither artists nor their heirs can assign such right or use the right by way of security. Moreover, the right can not be waived by the artists or their heirs and any agreement to share or repay the royalties will be unenforceable."

[tomhills1]

corblimeylimey said:

Only disposals for a value in excess of €1,000 where the parties are acting in the course of a business, will be affected. In addition, the disposal will not be regarded as a "resale" where the seller acquired the work within the previous three years and the subsequent sale price is for less than €10,000.

so does that not equate a timescale?

but don't quote me on it ;D

[corblimeylimey]

tomhills1 said:

corblimeylimey said:

Only disposals for a value in excess of €1,000 where the parties are acting in the course of a business, will be affected. In addition, the disposal will not be regarded as a "resale" where the seller acquired the work within the previous three years and the subsequent sale price is for less than €10,000.

so does that not equate a timescale?

but don't quote me on it ;D

I've quoted you again ;D

Lots of legal speak, pretty confusing isn't it?

What about the part that says "where the parties are acting in the course of a business" that makes a difference of paying the charge above €1000 instead of €10,000.

It's all very confusing, but I don't really care as it's not likely to affect me.