Re: droit de suite

On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Larry Weiss <pgw[_at_]idt.net> wrote:
>
> There is nothing to prohibit an artist from entailing a painting under
> existing law. He can insist on retaining a share of the proceeds if it
> is sold, at least within the period of perpetuities. Why don't artists
> do this instead of waiting for the government to do it for them? Maybe
> because insisting on such a restriction will lower the price they can
> demand now. If the market values a work less with the restriction than
> without, doesn't it deprive the buyer of bargained-for value to decree
> after the deal is made that he is not free to sell it without paying an
> unintended tribute?

That is exactly my main objection against this type of ruling -- you cannot be sure anymore of your deal with an artist, because they somehow have managed to change them after the fact through legislation. This kind of legislation creates precedent for even worse developments, and undermines the very concept of property rights. There is no need for such rules, as is also pointed out here.

Everybody will be deprived of 4% of his property in works of art the moment this legislation comes into force. For museums of modern art, that may come into millions of dollars... I cannot understand why there is no strong complaining to be heard from that side.

Jeroen Hellingman
<jehe[_at_]kabelfoon.nl> Received on Fri Mar 31 2000 - 19:59:11 GMT