‘With friends like this’…. Part II


My previous post – With friends like this’: Labor policies and the commercial, independent visual arts sector– was kindly posted by Ken Parish, 6 June.

In many ways, artist resale royalties are intrinsically a throwback to the pre-reform days of the 1970s and ’80s.

The royalty is both punitive and market distorting in design. For example: A collector buys a painting for $10,000.  After some years the collector  re-sells that painting for  $11,000 gaining  a profit of $1000; the 5% royalty on this resale being $550 or 55% of the profit on that resale. If this painting was instead to resell  for $9000, a loss of $1000 on the initial purchase price, there would be an additional loss of $400 in royalty due on that resale, bringing the total loss to $1,400.

The royalty does not apply to non-Australian artists; it does not apply to Australian artists who have died 70 or more years ago and it does not apply to many other forms of art-like collectables such as Ming porcelain and non-art furniture. The artist resale royalty is a serious deterrent to purchasing art by living Australian artists.

In 2008-09, DEWHA was assessed as non-compliant by the Office of Best Practice Regulation for the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act 2009 and a post-implementation review was required to commence within one to two years of implementation. However, the Act’s compliance with the post-implementation review has been delayed till June 2013. Thus the scheme will have operated for three years without meeting minimum best practice requirements. Best practice involves clear need, clear cost-benefit evidence, avoidance of substitution and unintended market distortions. Given the large costs relative to benefits delivered and the punitive and distorting effects upon the market, it is hard to see how it could ever pass a best-practice test.

The scheme harks back to pre-GST days of non-uniform transaction levies and market-distorting tariffs.


Part III of ‘With friends like this’  Artist resale royalties: a strange loop

About john r walker

Have been exhibiting for 30 years . Utopia Art Sydney is my sole outlet. Apart from painting representations I have had a long interest in deep time , history in general and the representation of representation. http://johnrwalker.com.au/
This entry was posted in Art and Architecture, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
11 years ago

Guy Rundle:

“In visual art, in Melbourne as everywhere, it is increasingly obvious that the entire gallery and re-sale system is iniquitous in the extreme due to the absence of any mandatory artist royalty for the re-sale of their work. That is a matter of international copyright law, but it is particularly important in Melbourne because of the amount of indigenous art sold domestically. For cultural reasons, indigenous artists are far more exposed to being ripped off by the system, and the degree of off-ripping is disgraceful. There is a case for strong regulation, with indigenous art dealers subject to a licensing system, character checks and regular auditing.”



[…] Also see ‘With friends like this’… part II. […]


[…] policies and Art ‘with friends like that:’ part I and part II can be found here and here. Share this:EmailDiggFacebookRedditPress This This entry was posted in Art and Architecture, […]