Steve Slatin on mon 7 apr 08
Hi, Jeanette --
IIRC, the creator must establishing copyright
for the piece under section 106 of the '76
copyright law. Once you've done this, you
retain exclusive rights to reproduction and
so forth of the original.
It's more difficult to establish rights to a
cut of the pie on resale -- that's like the
issue the software people fight, trying to
establish that the purchaser has a license to,
but not ownership of, the package. I
*have* heard of artists trying to establish
through the terms of the sale contract a
residual right to the work; I have *not*
heard of any artist making any cash off
it.
I think -- just for myself -- that I would
wouldn't want to buy any artwork for which
the owner was unwilling to transfer full
title. It's not that I buy and sell art --
I have never sold from my small personal
collection. (All de-accessions have been
by gift.) It's that it would feel too much
like I was buying a responsibility rather
than a pleasure. And I only by art for
my own pleasure.
Best -- Steve Slatin
Jeanette Harris wrote:
>i cannot speak from total experience...but i am
>sure that any gallery in new york, that has put a great
>deal of time and effort into `making and artist` would
not be pleased to see that artist selling out the back door.
Actors negotiate their residuals up front and if they're smart set
themselves up for the future. Wouldn't it be great if artists could
get the deal that actors, music composers and authors get? I mean
copyright and residuals every time the music is played, the book is
printed and sold?
Only with artists, it should be a leetle slice of the pie every time
an image is printed in a book; every time the work is sold a second
time at an art auction or when a museum buys it.
Maybe a little GPS tag to trace the changing of hands. (Actually
that isn't a bad idea for art treasurers that get pilfered out of
collections.) Sheesh if they can put them on cars and cell phones,
why not?
---------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
mel jacobson on mon 7 apr 08
i cannot speak from total experience...but i am
sure that any gallery in new york, that has put a great
deal of time and effort into `making and artist` would
not be pleased to see that artist selling out the back door.
and, i can see the point. you sign an exclusive....honor
it. and, without question, the folks that are going to
spend ten grand on a pot, do not usually bargain with
the artist...they go through the gallery. just the way
big art business is done. aritist often meet the client
at the gallery...you know...cocktails and shrimp..good wine.
sheeeeesheeeee. ken was known to ask the client
if his wife was decent in bed. good ol` boy.
he could have been on the red redneck show.
ken was destroying shop worn pots that had been
shipped back from new york. or, from where ever.
it was his business, he was doing what he thought
best. maybe he just hated the pieces. happens you
know...even great potters carry hammers. ken in fact,
was hard on himself...always. tough critic...and
dale was ferocious. he and ken could have some really
drag out fights. both had very hot tempers...big egos.
but, often that sort of person has the passion and temperament
to carry their work to all ends.
so, enough of this. you get the point.
can't drag this out....gets to personal, and the memories
are hard on me. great friends,,,dead and gone. great
inspiration...dead and gone. far too young.
mel
from minnetonka:
website http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
clayart site:
http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
Jeanette Harris on mon 7 apr 08
>i cannot speak from total experience...but i am
>sure that any gallery in new york, that has put a great
>deal of time and effort into `making and artist` would
not be pleased to see that artist selling out the back door.
Actors negotiate their residuals up front and if they're smart set
themselves up for the future. Wouldn't it be great if artists could
get the deal that actors, music composers and authors get? I mean
copyright and residuals every time the music is played, the book is
printed and sold?
Only with artists, it should be a leetle slice of the pie every time
an image is printed in a book; every time the work is sold a second
time at an art auction or when a museum buys it.
Maybe a little GPS tag to trace the changing of hands. (Actually
that isn't a bad idea for art treasurers that get pilfered out of
collections.) Sheesh if they can put them on cars and cell phones,
why not?
But I'm getting off the subject. Artists never did seem to get
collected enough to demand residuals. Guess we just aren't wired that
way-----heh. (That's a GPS joke.)
Jeanette
Who's husband bought a Garmen. And we love it. (It certainly talks
nicer to him than I ever did when he made a wrong turn or refused to
admit to Lost.)
--
http://jeanetteharrisblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.washingtonpotters.org/members/Jeanette_Harris/wpa_jeanette_harris.htm
http://www.sa-clayartists.org Click on Members, then H
Jeanette Harris
Washingzona
Lee on tue 8 apr 08
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Steve Slatin wrot=
e:
>
> I think -- just for myself -- that I would
> wouldn't want to buy any artwork for which
> the owner was unwilling to transfer full
> title. It's not that I buy and sell art --
We buy a lot of art (money is where the mouth is.) I am
happy to lend back the artist any of their work for restrospectives or
for photographing for articles, etc.
It is a compliment to your good tastes when an artist
likes your choices so well that they want what you have to represent
the best of what they do.
Jean has asked for these rights in the past and has used
them for images when applying for the McKnight and Bush Foundation
grants.
Sometimes I have work I don't want to sell except to
friends, or I will give those choice pieces to friends. That way, I
know where they are and can use them if I need them for a show or
slides.
--=20
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=F3g ar chul an tI=97tIr dlainn trina ch=E9ile"=97that is, "T=
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Snail Scott on tue 8 apr 08
> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:23:50 -0500
> From: mel jacobson
> ...i cannot speak from total experience...but i am
> sure that any gallery in new york, that has put a great
> deal of time and effort into `making and artist` would
> not be pleased to see that artist selling out the back door...
I'm no Ken Ferguson, but my stuff (being largish
sculpture) is on the pricey side, and I have typically
sold through galleries. The often want an exclusivity
arrangement, but it's not unlimited - usually, it means I
can't sell through two galleries in the same town or
some such.
When you sign on to join a gallery's 'stable', you become
part of their brand identity. They don't want to dilute that
by having your stuff all over town, especially if they are
paying for most of the advertising. (And they'd better
promote me if they want exclusivity.)
Selling direct from the studio is a big no-no, also. If
you do, you owe the same percentage to the gallery
as if they'd done the transaction themselves. This
presumes that the reason anyone showed up at your
studio is because they saw your work in the gallery,
or in an ad that the gallery paid for, so they are still
responsible for creating that sale. And I'm fine with
that. I've actually had people call me up and ask to
cut a deal - "So, that $2000 piece there in LaSnooty
Gallerie, they're getting 50%, right? How about you
cut me a deal, say $1500, and that way you get an
extra $500, I save an extra $500, we're both happy!"
When it's a higher price, the temptation to cut a
deal is pretty strong.
That's a quick way to poison a business relationship,
if word ever got out. And it probably will, because Mr.
Sneakypants Collector will tell all his friends how
smart he was, and they'll tell, etc... Half the time, they
aren't doing it because they're cash-strapped; they're
doing it because it's a business reflex. The rest of the
time, they do it just to feel smarter than everyone
else, so of course they have to boast about it.
I do expect concessions on that clause, though. If
a sale occurred solely through my effort and not due
to gallery publicity (family and friends, or someone I
met elsewhere) I will sell directly. Except for friends,
though, no price cuts. Never undercut yourself to
the public.
Some galleries won't give the artist the contact info
of buyers, for fear that they will deal directly with them
in the future. Trust has to go both ways, though. If I
am willing to rat out a collector trying to do an end
run around the gallery (and I have), I also expect the
gallery to give me the contact info of my collectors.
I generally have it put into my contract: my cut is
payable within 30 days of sale, and must be
accompanied by the buyer's full contact info.
I don't like giving up half my selling price, but I also
know that I wouldn't get that price on my own. And
if I don't like the arrangement, I can quit.
-Snail
Snail Scott on tue 8 apr 08
>
> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:17:22 -0700
> From: Jeanette Harris
> ...Wouldn't it be great if artists could
> get the deal that actors, music composers and authors get? Only
> with artists, it should be a leetle slice of the pie every time an
> image is printed in a book; every time the work is sold a second time
> at an art auction or when a museum buys it...
This is actually a law, in California and some
other places. Europe is trying to make it work.
It mainly only benefits high-end folks whose
work gets resold at Sotheby's etc. Tough to
track sales otherwise. And tough to even find
the artist, sometimes. Well-intentioned, but
hard to make it work.
Publication rights, though- those are pretty well
defined.
-Snail
Steve Slatin on tue 8 apr 08
Lee -
You misunderstand. I'm not talking (in the
little part you quoted) about the right to
reproductions. As I wrote earlier in that message,
to establish that right, an artist need only
establish copyright, which these days is
quite easy.
I was replying to the comment about
the artist retaining rights to income from
sale or transfer of the original, after having
already sold it.
If you go back to the original message,
you'll find this distinction clearly made.
-- Steve Slatin
Lee wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Steve Slatin wrote:
>
> I think -- just for myself -- that I would
> wouldn't want to buy any artwork for which
> the owner was unwilling to transfer full
> title. It's not that I buy and sell art --
We buy a lot of art (money is where the mouth is.) I am
happy to lend back the artist any of their work for restrospectives or
for photographing for articles, etc.
---------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
Jeanette Harris on tue 8 apr 08
Jeanette
Who's husband bought a Garmen. And we love it.
(It certainly talks nicer to him than I ever did when he made a wrong
turn or refused to admit to Lost.)
------Afterthought: Somehow, though, when he does make a wrong turn,
and the Garmen voice says, "Recalculating"
I think I can actually hear an eye-roll.
--
http://jeanetteharrisblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.washingtonpotters.org/members/Jeanette_Harris/wpa_jeanette_harris.htm
http://www.sa-clayartists.org Click on Members, then H
Jeanette Harris
Washingzona
Terrance Lazaroff on tue 8 apr 08
Snail;
Our high courts here in Quebec has awarded a lawsuit against an art gallery
that refused to give the artist the contact addresses of the clients that
purchased his work. Big settlement. Here it is in French.
JUGEMENT HISTORIQUE =BB
Dans un jugement tr=E8s attendu de la Cour d=92appel du Qu=E9bec dans l=92af=
faire
Marc-Andr=E9 Jacques Fortier contre Gestion B. Brisson et Associ=E9s et Bria=
n
Brisson, les trois juges confirment l=92essentiel du jugement de l=92Honorab=
le
Carole Julien, de la Cour sup=E9rieure, rendu le 16 mai 2006. Les Honorables=
juges Paul-Arthur Gendreau, Jacques Delisle et Marie-France Bich confirment
donc la condamnation solidaire de l=92entreprise, Gestion Brisson et
Associ=E9s, faisant affaire sous le nom de Galerie St-Dizier, et de M. Brian=
Brisson.
Ils confirment =E9galement l=92obligation pour le galeriste de tenir une
comptabilit=E9 s=E9par=E9e pour chaque artiste et de lui fournir le nom des
acqu=E9reurs des =9Cuvres d=92un artiste =ABet, le cas =E9ch=E9ant, leur adr=
esse
respective =BB.
Cette d=E9cision fera jurisprudence en confirmant pour la premi=E8re fois l=
a
validit=E9 d=92une partie importante de la Loi sur le statut professionnel d=
es
artistes des arts visuels, des m=E9tiers d=92art et de la litt=E9rature et s=
ur
leurs contrats avec les diffuseurs (L.R.Q. c. S-32.01).
The important point here is that the gallery is obliged to maintain a
separate sheet of accounting for each artist and to supply the names and
addresses of the purchasers to the artist. I believe that this came about
because the gallery was selling the work of the artist at a price higher
that what was established between the two parties and only declaring the
original price to the artist. The artist tried to find out what is actual
sales were but could not determine his sales because they were bunched into
the total sales of the gallery. Thus the law now states a separate page
for each artist. Being unable to determine the name of the purchaser the
artist had no way to confirm the actual purchasing price of the work. Thus
the gallery could, for example, sell a painting consigned at $1000.00 for
$2000.00 and pay the artist his commission only on the original thousand
consignment figure.
Quebec galleries now must follow this law. This also applies to Craft
galleries and boutiques that accept work on consignment.
The Quebec Artist Association (RAAV), Was instramental in supporting the
legal aspects of this case. This is good reason to support your local art
association. Food for though.
Terrance Lazaroff
Visit Terry's website at http://www.clayart.ca
| |
|
