Talk:Droit de suite

Definition?

In reference to "art", exactly what are they referring to? Paintings? Sculptures? Poetry? Photography? "Works of Fiction"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.5.177 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Australian Section

Re " with about 60% going to Indigenous artists" Actual auction resales of indigenous art last year were 8 million , less than 10% of total resales. The 60% figure is correct but quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedestrian1957 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So I'm going to take this out, for the following reasons: 1) It clearly doesn't fit under the heading 'United States'.

'"droit de suite" is not a exclusively US legal concept . Surely this would be better moved to an Australian heading rather than removed ? 'Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

2) Advice from the Australian Solicitor General about the constitutional validity of proposed Australian legislation does not 'lend support to' the view that different legislation is inconsistent with a different constitution.

It was publicly stated by senior officers of the relevant public service department, when giving evidence to the parliamentary standing committee on the environment and the arts (feb 2009) that the scheme is not retrospective in aplication because of Solicitor General advice that retrospective application ran real risk of a adverse (I.e compensation) ruling by the high court 'Pedestrian1957 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3) 'Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The term 'unjust enrichment' does not appear in the Australian Constitution, and I can't see any conceivable connection between s 52 and resale royalties for artists. Possibly this should have been a reference to s 51(xxxi), which implicitly prohibits acquisitions of property otherwise than on just terms. If so, it shouldn't be put back in unless it is explained in at least some detail, especially because it doesn't seem to me like it could be based on any orthodox interpretation of s 51(xxxi).

4) No explanation is given for why 'the opt-out rather than opt-in' nature of the Act would be inconsistent with it being part of the Copyright Act. Given that the conclusion is supposedly that the legislation needs to be separate from the Copyright Act, I can only imagine that it's because the opt-out version is considered taxation whereas the opt-in version would not be (thus the former would need to deal only with taxation under s 55). But I'm pretty much guessing. So again, I don't think this should go back without being explained.

The reason why use of the collection society, by artists, is not compulsory is that compulsory collective usage would make the payment of collection service fees compulsory. The collection fees are a fixed %10 regardless of the size of the royalty payment , they are definitely not a service fee based on actual transaction costs. This fee structure involves a very large cross-subsidy . If this cross-subsidy was compulsory I.e a tax, then the first paragraph of section 55 would have come into play, "laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect."Pedestrian1957 (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Act (which is actually called the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act 2009) may be worthy of some discussion in this article, but I think it should be based on details of how the scheme operates rather than speculations about the constitutional validity of a particular draft of the Bill. The relevance that the current information would have to the droit de suite, even if it were accurate, is highly questionable. So until someone feels like adding more useful Australian information, I think it's best to just take it out.

The point I would like to emphasize is that there is no global shared understanding of what 'droite de suite', in practice, actually means - surely this is a problem for a encyclopedia entry?Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ART (American Royalties Too) Act

http://hyperallergic.com/174540/the-art-act-is-dead-but-congressman-will-reintroduce-it/ I'm surprised there's no mention of this being reintroduced this year, in the US section. It's a foot in the door to end first sale doctrine. 73.181.82.26 (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links

• United Kingdom: controversy
  • "Artists' Resale Right (Droit de Suite) Directive". UK Patent Office. Archived from the original on 2006-05-19.
  • "profile droit de suite". Caslon Analytics. April 2010.
  • "Artists Resale Rights". Law Clinic. Archived from the original on 2007-09-28.
  • "Artists Resale Right". Artquest. Retrieved 2011-11-03.
  • "EU levy 'will hand much of Britain's booming art market to the US'". The Daily Telegraph. 2005-02-15. Archived from the original on 2007-03-11.
  • The Guardian
    • Ian Black; Dan Atkinson (2000-02-16). "Britain gives up the fight against European art sale tax". The Guardian.
    • Max Hastings (2005-01-03). "Art failure". The Guardian.

• • Iphotocentral.com
    • "London Auctions Implement Droit de Suite". iPhotoCentral. 2006-04-04.
    • "U.K. Caves into Droit de Suite Endangering London Contemporary Art Market". iPhotoCentral. 2006-01-08.
    • "Europe Prepares for New Charges on Art and Photography Sales, as Droit de Suite Directive Goes into Effect". iPhotoCentral. 2006-11-30.
• France
  • "Code de la propriété intellectuelle" [Intellectual property code] (in French). Légifrance. 2009-08-29.

These links not really suitable for External Links but the information they contain may be transferable into the article ツStacey (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)