For the sake of the economy?
The people who tend to trade most in art are th epeople who will be least affected by the economical climate.
And since when was the art trade a major part of the British economy?
The Government has asked the European Commission for permission to continue to deny dead artists' estates a royalty on art sales. It has sided with the art sale industry over artists in seeking to extend the denial of the royalty until 2012. The Government said that it feared that introducing the royalty for dead artists' work …
If only we could get this extended to housebuilders as well... That you can take a cut every time the house you built gets sold... I would def look into becoming a builder if such a law was passed :D
As it is right now I am going to become a painter, set up a company representing my interests, paint some shit, make a huge controversy, fake my own death in a spectacular way involing some sort of canoe, and then come back after a few years to collect my millions.
hopefully by then my housebuilding proposal would have become law :D
Look, the Lisbon Agenda is dead, bury it already.
You cannot create a fake market in IP goods by making everyone pay twice, three times, n-times, to any arbitrary 'IP' rights holder simply to inflate the value of the EU economy.
It's no different than the fake smoke bubble that's popping in the US now, the fake valuation in house prices caused by lending to people who couldn't pay using money borrowed from the Chinese. Or the derivative bubble created by fractional lending & other frauds and Ponsi schemes.
Sure for a while you sell each other 'right' or 'bonds', or 'license fees for IP rights'. But without productive work behind them, they are just fake asset & income bubbles. You are artificially creating an overhead, then trying to sell people this overhead. Sooner or later people realize there is no real value there. With the burst goes your value, and with your value, goes the need for others to buy your smoke bubbles.
A person creates work which creates an asset which THEY earn income on = PRODUCTION.
A person creates work, which creates an asset, which someone else lays claims to by dubious means, and demands an income from = COUNTER-PRODUCTION.
' "If the art traders are seeing a reduction in business they will not only sell fewer works - but will not buy them from artists either. This will have a knock on effect for artists who will find that there is less of a market for their work," he said. '
Maybe the problem is the traders. Why should they be buying stuff of uncertain value in order to sell on after establishing a value for it? As far as I can see, con artists have the same MO.
What if these "art traders" became "art brokers" and just worked on commission?
Fairer deal for everyone, from the off.
A musician records a song and then gets paid every time a copy is played for the next 70 years, even if they're dead (or if, like Cliff Richards, we just wish they were).
An artist paints a picture and doesn't get paid more than once even if the original is later sold on, let alone copies.
I suppose it would be too much to hope for some consistency in intellectual property laws.
That it's copies of the music being sold - not a one off original. I'm sure if I sold a CD I'd already bought for a million dollars the artist wouldn't get a cent, copyright or no.
This is not a copyright issue, it's a new form of IP (hateful, nonsensical phrase that it is) that really shouldn't exist unless art traders are ripping off artists.
I think we should push that idea.
Journalism could be art as well, you can get away with a lot in the name of art.
Artists could licence to a foundation that might be a way to get an extension.
Copy cats are the bores of society, rock breaking is too good for them, if you cannot create art stop copying it, and pony up to experience it, bunch of freeloaders.