[dmandpenfold]

While Nicks topic of the day there is some new work from the 'To have and to hold' show now on Nick's site, 'born to bomb' and various 'cans' all unique being a combination of screen print and hand sprayed..if its your bag and you've any pay left at the end of the month

[corblimeylimey]

I'm glad Nicks contract is untrue but as I was saying in my posts the droit de suite law is fact in the EU.

The droit de suite law affects art over €10000 (thats euro not pounds) unless it's in the course of business which brings the value down to €1000 and it does affect limited edition prints not just original pieces as far as I can tell.

Again if anyone wants to read all the full facts.....

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

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

[Strange Al]

jjoschi44 said:

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.

One last try - here's the link to DACs - www.dacs.org.uk/. The main body responsible for collecting artist's resale royalties in the UK. Much easier to follow than some of the other stuff on the topic.

I just don't see how any fans of art can be opposed to the this.

Plus, search the database of registered artists and Banksy is among them.

[mose]

bcfc said:

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

BFCF, what is sad is that you seem to be a bit of the disagreeable sort.

Let's take your points one-by-one:

1. "On the back of total hearsay" What hearsay? Billiam's comments were based on an accurate sales agreement that was attached to Nick Walker's work. No hearsay, fact. To make the assumption that an artist has their business arrangements in check is perhaps a poor one given the checkered history of artists throughout, well, history, but it was logical to assume that Mr. Walker knew about how his work was being sold. If he didn't, he damn well should have.

2. "NW should in someway be grateful that people buy his work" as should all producers of non-essentials.

3. "his work is sh*t" You don't speak American. Billiam said, " what his sh*t sells for" not "his work is s**t". s**t, in American, is often used as a synonym for "stuff" or "possessions". The phrase, "Hand me my s**t," therefore does not mean you are asking someone to pass you your own fecal matter.

4. "You are now posting messages in his defence, laughable." No, what is laughable is someone changing their point of view based on more evidence coming out and it not being okay with you. Your 'righteous correctness' is part of the problem, not the solution.

5. Did you just expose someone's PM on a public forum? If so, you do realize that whatever you think Billiam did that your bad form trumps that. PM does still stand for "personal" message.


Now, let's move on brother. Mistakes were made all around, on Mr. Walker's part, the gallery's, Billiam's, my own(I know what was going through my head based on the evidence we had), I assume several other forum members that may have thought the same as I or posted the same as Billiam, and on your part.

[Ågent ßacardi]

Okay, what's passed has passed, so let's just forgive, forget, and move on shall we? The truth from Mr. Walker's perspective has already been revealed, so let's quit picking on the bones. If you want to discuss the droit de suite law or your opinions on artists enforcing some sort of royalty clause, by all means, feel free to do so... it's a great topic of discussion. But no personal attacking - neither artist nor member, alright?

And just a general note to everyone in future: Please refrain from posting private messages in any thread, unless the original sender has allowed so, in which case it should be clearly stated that "XXX has agreed to the posting of this message" (or something like that). Please respect each others' privacy the same way as you would want yours to be respected.

Henceforth, posts containing private messages (with no indication of the original author's consent) will be deleted to protect the original sender. However, if a sender has unjustly sent anyone a particularly nasty message that you feel offended by, please contact me or Silky, and we will help you out. I think that's fair, no?

Okay, bygones!!

[Run Pig Run]

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.

whats worse: encouraging people to buy to sell or accepting a 10% resell right?

[andrewd]

I cann't see why a living artist would necesssarily need to benefit from a resale profit on a piece of art. If prices go up for an artist then they benefit from the increased price of future work.
I wonder who the first artist to offer to buy art back at the original price when the price drops will be!

[wildbill]

Wow!! I thought my ears were ringing Low blow man!!!

You have misunderstood what I said. I did not mean that Nicks work is sh*t, I use that word everyday to refer to anything, like "hey this is some GOOD sh*t!" Hell yes Nick should be grateful people are buying his work, especially for the amount of money he gets, so to try to squeeze out some extra penny's would be ridiculous. There are only a handful of artist in the world who get that kind of money and the others would kill to make it big. Let me introduce a term, "starving artist."

As I said before I can be overly passionate sometimes. Thats when words like sh*t start flying. You managed to make this out to be about the quality of Nick's work when in fact it had nothing to do with that. subconscious thoughts maybe , who knows.

Lesson #1: It takes a man to admit when he may have been wrong. Only a coward would shamefully exploit that to his own benefit. perhaps you should re-examine this whole deal, take a long hard look in the mirror, and ask yourself who is Spineless.

I'm not just some two faced a#* like your trying to make me out to be. Anyone who knows me on this forum can attest to that. I like to think that I'm a good guy.

WTF man, I took the time to extend an apology to you for the misunderstanding because I could see how upset you where and I don't want to be the cause of ruining anyones day. I don't think that was even necessary, and I even went as far as to post Nick's quote in his defense. And you exploited it like a Freaking 12 year old in a popularity contest.

Whatever's clever man. I'm not your F*#%ing enemy dude. I'm not the Ghost of the forum floating around talking about the quality of Nick's work. So don't project that sh*t on me and make yourself look like an A*#

Check yourself before you wreck yourself!!!!!!!!!!!

I stood up for your, "friend" but don't expect me to do it again if this is what will happen.

Later

[goffy]

O.K. So Nick Walker didn't put this clause in, but due to not all of the facts being known people have been wrongly getting slagged off. Why are people getting so irate about it? It is like people complaining about a certain TV programme when all they had to do is turn over. If you don't agree with the clause then DON'T BUY THE PRINT. The only people who will be affected by the clause are the ones who buy to sell on. It wont be a problem for the people who buy Nick's work because they like it and want to keep it. This forum is full of people complaining of people buying up prints to sell on, so if the clause was used would it be so bad? Example; if POW insisted on this clause when selling a Banksy would you sign it? Of course you would and you would applaud POW for trying to stop the scalpers. Again, the only people who would be upset about it are the ones who have got 'Morons' on ebay now.

[dkla]

goffyxtc, sorry bro, but your comment is senseless. First, people were commenting on the principle of the clause. Second, Banksy is in an entirely different league than Nick. Trying to draw some kind of comparison on whether or not POW added the clause to Banksy purchase orders is worthless. Let it go and let's move on...

[goffy]

So which Morons on ebay is yours?

[dkla]

Touche! No, I've never sold anything on ebay - literally. And I would NEVER sell a Banksy. On the contrary, my goal is to purchase as much as I can afford. By the way, goffyxtc, apologies to you if my post sounded harsh -- I just read it again and I can see how it would. Word choices like "senseless" and "worthless" come across as such; the way it reads on the forum isn't the tone that was in my head as I was blindly typing. I don't want you to think I was attacking you somehow.

[goffy]

No problem. I think the overall tone of this thread is getting a bit out of hand. Like you say, let's move on.

[Ågent ßacardi]

The type-written word lacks the facial expressions and body language that would otherwise accompany our thoughts if spoken in person. That's where emoticons come in! Use them to soften edges!

But anyway, about the clause... I actually quite support it. Like nuart has expressed, if most professions in life have unions to protect them, why shouldn't artists have something like that too? From the point of view of an artist (not Nick Walker; I'm just imagining myself as one), if someone were to buy my work not because they loved it, but because they wanted to sell it on before the paint has even dried solely to profit off the fruits of my labor/talent, it would be a huge insulting slap in my face. If I am a popular artist, I'd like to think that I'm popular because my art resonates with my fans, and not because of the resale price tag attached. I am an artist, not your workhorse, so don't use me like a tool.

But on the other hand, if an artist is fortunate enough for his work to attract such high demand, then if a buyer can sell it off for a tidy sum, that'd mean that the artist would be in a position to raise his prices and reap the fruits of his own labor. Some people might argue that things will even out if that's the case, and the clause wouldn't be such a huge concern. However, I still think there's something slightly wrong with this picture, 'cos resale prices are usually much larger than cost prices. Hence, the buyers will still make a lot more profit than the artist. And just because I believe that the most profit should rightly go to the most deserved person - the one who has the talent and actually did the work - I don't think it's right for someone who merely flashed his/her credit card to receive the largest gain.

I agree that the people who had the foresight to support the artist right from his/her humble beginnings should be rewarded... but I just don't believe that anybody should be rewarded more than the artist himself/herself. What can I say, I guess I'm a hopeless idealist

[tomhills1]

it's a shame that this thread got a bit out of hand, some good points made on both sides but due to them inferring specific things about specific people it obviously upset people.

maybe look at what's been written on both sides of the argument and apply it to all artists whether they're banksy, hirts, warhol or a second year fine art degree student. the law may be invented to protect certain people but it applies to all people, such is it's nature. perhaps it would be more sensical to take some from the richer to subsidise the poorer and i think that is the spirit of the law. it's just not as black and white as that.

any thoughts? please refer to the title of this thread rather than anyone named within it and we can maybe have a nice friendly discussion.

no, i'm not drunk.