Re: droit de suite

On Fri, Apr 07, 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/06/2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > It would reasonably follow that the authors/creators were paid
> > > by the publisher to sell their rights at a price that both
> > > agreed upon.
> >
> > But this isn't usually what happens, though it may seem to you to
> > "reasonably follow."
>
> Errrrrrrr... huh? Again, a publisher does not *create* the work
> and therefore doesn't have initial possession of the associated
> rights -- the creator does. Because those rights are exclusive,
> s/he is the ONLY one with those rights, and the only way I'm aware
> of that anyone else can obtain those rights is for the creator to
> either share them or surrender them, whether to a publisher or any
> other party.
>
> Why would a creator do that? One answer is that s/he was compensated
> to do so. Another reason may be that such a requirement was part and
> parcel to negotiating the deal to publish. Whatever the reason, the
> creator has the *choice* to retain or surrender his/her rights.
>
> Perhaps you are struggling with the issue of the "price" or "payment".
> Payment may be a lump sum to buy the rights. Payment might be that
> the publisher bears the expense/risk of making the work accessible
> in a deliverable form where it can possibly earn a profit. Payment
> can be a percentage of gross receipts.
>
> In the last few days, someone (and please forgive, I've read so many
> posts in the last few days I'm not sure who) made an analogy of
> purchasing a house for a really favorable price, in fact lower than
> its market value, and a discussion ensued as to whether or not the
> purchaser, upon reselling for a really sound market price, should go
> back and offer the initial seller who undervalued the property more
> money.
>
> I think *that* is really the crux of the issue -- the perception that
> the big nasty publishers *fleece* creators out of their rights by
> paying them a pittance of what those rights are worth. BUT, at the
> time of negotiation, the true value of those rights is not yet
> established. Prior to Grisham's first hugely successful book, the
> perceived value of his rights to a work in manuscript form certainly
> wasn't the same that as a manuscript would be today.
>
> Bottom line -- it is up to the creator to make choices about the
> value of his/her rights and what terms or payments they will accept
> in exchange for them. It is up to them to learn about the process
> so they don't get *taken*, the same way it is up to me to make sure
> that I understand how to negotiate in purchasing a car so I don't
> get soaked.

How appalling for you to suggest that artists even think about money! Haven't you learned anything from this discussion. They are benevolent creators whom we should shower with gifts whether there is value in their work or not. When an artist sells something it is not really sold. They are simply lending it to the borrower until the market decides it has real value. At this point the artist should be compensated again, and the buyer should be taxed heavily. Unless, of course, the buyer has happened to die and leave the art to his nephew who always thought it was a great piece. Then we tax the nephew into selling the piece, or maybe we should just take it away because the nephew is to "distant" to deserve an inheritance.

(insert goofy winking symbol)

Keith

Keith Taber
keith[_at_]drylaw.com Received on Tue Apr 11 2000 - 14:12:19 GMT