DACS are now trawling art dealers’ websites for potential royalties. This morning I received an e-mail informing me I ‘represent’ a certain artist, (deceased.)
So I labour for third and fourth generation families who have a vague notion that some grandparent removed, was an ‘artist’ of some description.
I rise early, put petrol in my car, travel, feed my self, pay the exhibition fee, labour putting everything together, pay for a hotel room etc., etc., and much more, all to help fund the lifestyle of someone sat at home in front of the television. I wonder if any of these beneficiaries would care to give me a percentage of the royalty in return for all my hard graft in funding their bank balance. I doubt it somehow.
I recall that shop and factory owners are not, it seems, allowed to play the radio to their staff and customers unless they purchase a licence. Anybody remember ‘Workers Playtime’ on the radio broadcast live from factories or even, perhaps, the wartime factories (before my time,) where the radio kept up everyone’s spirits? No licences needed then. Sadly, today, everyone has the eye for a quick penny, every corner and tiny crevice of potential profit is milked to absurdity and common sense goes out of the window. This European experiment has much to answer for especially this appalling piece of legislation. How many dealers are contemplating, ‘enough is enough?’
This is one art buyer who will be avoiding the work of living artists.
John James
http://www.signaturefineart.co.uk











Niall Fairhead
July 10, 2012
Hi John
I can well understand you getting upset over this intrusion. It is little understood how us Art Dealers work long hours often in inclement conditions and we might feel a little distressed when “The Art Police” decide to pay us a visit.
Your comment reminds me of an interesting comment from the petition helpfully supplied by a successful and well meaning artist:
Petition Comment 1032
Harold Fuchs, American Professional Artist
“If you buy my car would I have to pay Ford? What’s the difference?”
regards
Niall
http://www.images-art.co.uk
Jeanno R. Barr
July 11, 2012
Amen.
John R Walker
July 11, 2012
Speaking as a living artist I completely agree. Artist resale royalties are a discriminatory tariff against all purchases of any art made by any artist afflicted by it . It is obvious that good ‘second hand’ prices, for objects that can cost tens of thousands at first sale , is very important to healthy first sales.
The reality is that the principle beneficiaries of ARR are either dead artists estates or collection society managements, neither of whom make and sell their own art for a living. ARR is anti-productivity , rent seeking to a tee .
I am still amazed that the Conservative-Liberal Government of the UK thinks that compulsory collective management and retrospective violations of property rights ,for reasons other than vital national interest, is consistent with liberal/conservative values !
Niall Fairhead
July 14, 2012
Hi John
I love this expression”retrospective violation of property rights”.
So true!
Best
Niall