Francesca Rudkin: 5% seems about the right amount for artists

When I heard the announcement this week by Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Carmel Sepuloni that painters and other visual artists whose work is resold will get 5% in royalties from the sale, under a new scheme called Artist Resale Royalty Scheme. I thought, about time.

When you pause and think about it, it’s shocking this hasn’t happened sooner. That currently everyone benefits from the talent, career and increased value of an artist’s work except the artist seems unfair and unethical. How galling must it be, for artists and artists’ estates to see the value of their original creations increase on the secondary market and not to benefit from these transactions.

5% seems about the right amount. For some artists it won’t add up to much, for others it will be a considerable sum; but it’s a scheme that protects and encourages both up-and-coming artists and those who are more established. Surely, dealers, galleries and auction houses can’t complain about 5% - even though it will make a difference to those who haven’t already started implementing a copyright royalty. Arguably, the percentage could have been higher.

I’m sure those buying and selling, and sometimes making a small fortune, will agree it’s time to recognise the artists’ contribution in the secondary market.

Much as I was delighted to read the announcement, it’s worth noting that a lot of hard work has gone into getting this scheme up and running. It’s been 15 years since the Ministry produced a discussion paper on Artist Resale Royalties. The scheme was originally introduced to Parliament as the Copyright Amendment Bill in 2008 and failed to pass in 2009 – and the issue just disappeared from public view.

Last year, as the NZ and global art market took off again after stalling at the beginning of Covid, the topic came to the fore again - driven by the advocacy of groups such as Equity For Artists set up by Judy Darragh, Dane Mitchell and Reuben Paterson. Good on them for continuing the fight.

New Zealand is now catching up to the rest of the world; over 80 countries already have schemes like this. France’s version first became law in 1920, while the practice – known as Driot de suite (or “right to follow”) - actually began after the sale of Jean Francois Millet’s 1858 painting Angelus in 1889. The wealthy owner at the time made a huge profit from the sale, while Millet’s family lived in poverty.

While it’s good to see New Zealand finally step up to treasure its visual artists, I don’t understand why it needs more than two years to set the scheme up. Yes, the law needs to be put in place and a not-for-profit organisation be put in place for administration, but surely two things can be prepped at the same time.

Collecting royalties isn’t new to creative industries; it is standard in the music, publishing and entertainment industries. There are plenty of existing organisations who can offer advice and support, such as APRA AMCOS which protects musician’s copyright and collects royalties.

Surely we can do better than wait for this to be in place by the end of 2024.

 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.