Today's postings

  1. [Baren 33846] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books. (Dave Bull)
  2. [Baren 33847] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books. (David Harrison)
  3. [Baren 33848] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books. (Charles Morgan)
  4. [Baren 33849] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) (Diane Cutter)
  5. [Baren 33850] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books. (Dan Dew)
Member image

Message 1
From: Dave Bull
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 22:26:33 +0900
Subject: [Baren 33846] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books.
Send Message: To this poster

Mark Mason wrote:
> In Europe (Certainly in the UK) there were recent changes to the laws
> regarding sales of art and artist's rights in the secondary market so
> that now, an artist can benefit financially from the resale of his
> work in the form of a percentage royalty.
> �
> I don't think this is the case in the US, but what do members think of
> such a scheme, and have any members seen their own work being sold on
> the secondary market for more than they originally sold it for?
> It seems a shame that David may not benefit from this sale, but it
> does afford us the opportunity to see a really large image of one of
> his poet prints. The carving of the linework is lovely, so fluid.

Mark, although I appreciate your concern for my welfare, I have to
disagree with your point of view on this!

I made that print (many years ago), and sold it to somebody. We made a
fair exchange: they got a print, I received fair payment for it. From
my point of view, that's the end of my legal connection to that piece
of paper. Some years later they must have taken their collection to a
Tokyo print shop, and sold it, and another dealer has now picked up a
bunch of them, and is selling them on eBay. Those pieces of paper are
not my property at all, and I don't understand the logic behind the law
you refer to. How (or why) should I have any claim at all on a print
like that?

I guess what these lawmakers are trying to do is 'protect' the people
who get more famous as time goes by. They sell a print/painting for
say, $100. Many years later, after they get famous, the painting sells
for a gazillion dollars, and they want some of that. But it wasn't
_worth_ more than $100 when they sold it!

I really don't see the problem in that situation. They lost their
chance on the old $100 painting, but if they have indeed now become
famous, then they are obviously able to sell more recent work for much
more, so where's the problem?

Should Toyota get 'royalties' on used car sales? What's the difference?
(Not being sarcastic here ... just confused about the twisted logic
of this stuff ...)

Member image

Message 2
From: David Harrison
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:44:36 +0100
Subject: [Baren 33847] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books.
Send Message: To this poster

What puzzles me is how this is enforced. Since this law came
into force I have bought at least one woodcut print that was
from a limited edition but no-one could decipher the signature.
So, must the buyer or seller spend time and money tracking down
the author to pass on a 4% share of, say, £10? From what I just
read of the regulations, yes. So who write the 40p cheque and sends
it to DACS on a one-off transaction?

Of course respectable galleries and auction houses will adhere to the
rules. They must in order to maintain reputation. Provided they're
up-front about their sales, keep records and pay up on time, no
problem. But a huge amount of art changes hands off-channel. I wonder
how much success DACS will have at chasing down people who sell via
eBay, classified ads, car boot sales and so on. The law applies to those
venues too, and a half-enforced law is no law at all.

Then there's the fun of deciding whether an item qualifies as -- or was
ever intended as -- a work of art. Some years down the line we may see
some twinkling debates among bewigged blokes at the High Court :-)

My 2 cents' worth...
David H
Baren-Suji needs you! If you'd like to write an article or suggest one,
drop me a line off-list or mail .

Member image

Message 3
From: Charles Morgan
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:04:27 -0700
Subject: [Baren 33848] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books.
Send Message: To this poster

Does the law apply if I later sell an artwork at
a loss? Suppose someone pays the outrageous sum
of $500 for a print by that famous artist Marles
Chorgan. Then 5 years later that person sells it
but can only get $5 for it. Under this law, could
Marles be required to reimburse the purchaser for at least part of the loss??

Wouldn't it be fun if automakers were subject to the same law??

Let's say I buy a new car for $30,000. I keep it
for 5 years and then sell it for $15,000.
Shouldn't the automaker have to reimburse me for
at least part of the loss? Or suppose that car is
really something special, and I keep it for 25 or
30 years and then sell it for $100,000 to some
collector. Should I then have to share part of my
profit with the original automaker?

One might apply similar reasoning to almost any
manufactured item. I wonder what the rationale was for applying it to art ...

Cheers ....... Charles
Member image

Message 4
From: Diane Cutter
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 07:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 33849] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML)
Send Message: To this poster

Hi, Su... I'm still waiting on Julio's prints. I have everything collated, the colophon ready to go (minus one entry), the packaging is sitting to one side. I'm sorry this is taking so long but soon... (I can't wait to have my table back, too).

Member image

Message 5
From: Dan Dew
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:16:51 -0400
Subject: [Baren 33850] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books.
Send Message: To this poster

I may be wrong here, but I think the original intent was meant for
situations like this:
I buy a series of Dave's prints, have them turned into a calendar and
and print 5 million copies for sale.