Artist Resale Royalties (aka ‘Droit de Suite’)

[Tin Can]

The other day I made a clumsy comment in Kirk Giddings Artist Success thread about this topic. I was unaware of any historical precedence. But today this very interesting news popped up in my email.

http://hyperallergic.com/153681/an-illustrated-guide-to-artist-resale-royalties-aka-droit-de-suite/

The article does ask for POLITICAL action, I believe this issue is a concern for every artist, especially the not famous or pre famous.

If this is too POLITICAL so be it.

This is actually business.

What are your thoughts?

[Bill_1856]

What a stupid idea. No wonder that it's the law in France.

[Lenny Eiger]

It is also the law here. I wish it were implemented. I know my work has ben resold, and I never received a penny.

The folks that work 9-5 have a number of mechanisms to save money for retirement, 401K's, etc. Artists generally get paid very poorly, they get almost no government assistance, unlike in other countries. Musicians even get something when their song is played on the radio, due to their unions. I will not suggest that any of these systems work properly or fully.

The suggestion is that if someone is stupid enough to be an artist, then so be it: you get to be poor, have a terrible time getting your kids thru college and must figure out how to live on social security money, which is a total joke.

It begs the other question, of course, which is whether there is any value to art. My opinion is that this culture (the US) is in serious trouble and desperately needs art, among a lot of other things.

When your work is resold, if you have enough, it could act as a kind of retirement income, and it should. If you look at the countries where people are happiest, they have an idea that "we are all in this together" vs the "I got mine, screw you" that is most prevalent here in the US. It is more than disappointing. Being one of those idealistic people that grew up in the 60's, this sin't what I signed up for. I'd like to see it change.

Lenny

[Taija71A]

The other day I made a clumsy comment in Kirk Giddings Artist Success thread about this topic...

____

Kirk Giddings... Who is that anyway?

:o

_________

[gregmo]

I think a resale royalty is a great idea. The auction houses, galleries, art reps/ dealers..they only care about their commission percentage on the sale of work to their clientele & could care less about the artists themselves.
It needs to be applied to sales outside of auction houses, as well, but enforcing the royalty on those sales might be difficult.

[gregmo]

I don't see why any artist who sells a piece to a buyer cant have a contract written up to include a resale royalty.

[Tin Can]

____

Kirk Giddings... Who is that anyway?

:o

_________

Sorry Mr Gittings. I am really bad with names. I could not introduce my brother to my mother. Not kitting. :)

[Taija71A]

Sorry Mr Gittings. I am really bad with names. I could not introduce my brother to my mother. Not kitting. :)

____

Good one Randy!
I like your 'Sense of Humor' (You win!).
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[jp]

I don't see why any artist who sells a piece to a buyer cant have a contract written up to include a resale royalty.

That's my question too... It would strengthen provenance by tracking art like we track collector cars with title transfers, etc...

[gregmo]

That's my question too... It would strengthen provenance by tracking art like we track collector cars with title transfers, etc...

Luckily, I live in the lawyer capital of the world & have several lawyer friends. I emailed one of my good friends who does a lot of contract work about this. I would think artist to buyer to 3rd party is pretty easy to keep binding. Need to find out about later re-sale. Why wait for the government to make laws like this. Just be proactive & do it. I'm young & have a solid 50-60 years ahead of me..plan for the future, right. ha

[jp]

I wouldn't call that lucky. But then I'd be getting into politics. I'd think it'd be like covenants on land. Someone adds covenants like "no trailers" on a property when the sell it, and the rule sticks around well beyond that transaction. If I sold art under such royalties, it'd be "either pay me or a mutually agreeable nonprofit x percent."

[gregmo]

For now at least it can't be done.
17 U.S. Code 119, First Sale Doctrine: artists do not have the right to control or profit from subsequent sales.

The law would need to be changed.

[Tin Can]

So we have a law specifically to stop resale royalties.

[hoffner]

What a stupid idea. No wonder that it's the law in France.

DACS collects ARR each time the British stock agency I work for finds that somebody re-sales my pictures they sold. Works nicely.

[hoffner]

What a stupid idea. No wonder that it's the law in France.


For now at least it can't be done.
17 U.S. Code 119, First Sale Doctrine: artists do not have the right to control or profit from subsequent sales.



What a stupid idea. No wonder that it's the law in USA.

[gregmo]

So we have a law specifically to stop resale royalties.

Yeah..it's written under Copyright law. This morning, another friend who is a patent attorney/litigator told me a First Sale Doctrine also applies to patents.

[jp]

Looks like changing that would really be uphill against the music/movie industry, which is traditionally influential. It would be a useful change for the software companies, which are presently influential. IOW, it's probably not something we could easily venture into changing.

[paulr]

I understand the sentiment behind resale royalties, but not the legal or ethical justification.

When we sell a photograph to someone, it's already a restricted sale. They get ownership of an object, and right to display it. But no other rights to the image. Royalties in other arts are paid specifically for those rights we're withholding: reproduction, distribution, paid public performance, etc.. An author doesn't get royalties when someone resells a used book—even if it's become rare and valuable.

[Jim Jones]

DACS collects ARR each time the British stock agency I work for finds that somebody re-sales my pictures they sold. Works nicely.

If it does work properly, good. Reading the proposed amendment (American Royalties Too Act of 2014) to title 17 of the United States Code is not reassuring. It might well benefit some self-appointed czars of artists rights and some successful artists or their heirs. It would have no impact on the many area artists I know. However, I admit to not have read the entire 366 page PDF of title 17 that the proposal would amend. The Congress members who may vote on the proposal probably haven't read title 17 either.

[gregmo]

Looks like changing that would really be uphill against the music/movie industry, which is traditionally influential. It would be a useful change for the software companies, which are presently influential. IOW, it's probably not something we could easily venture into changing.

My friend who gave me the info yesterday is somewhat optimistic due to the large number of European countries who take part in an ARR that the US would join in the future. Who knows when that may be.

Also, right now, the only way to maybe get around the law (hold up in court) is for the artist to not technically "sell" the work to the buyer, but to draw up a rental or lease contract with them & each time it changed hands a royalty be paid. The artist then runs the risk of making a lot of angry customers/ supports of their art with that route.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry Mr Gittings. I am really bad with names. I could not introduce my brother to my mother. Not kitting. :)

:) me too

[Lenny Eiger]

My friend who gave me the info yesterday is somewhat optimistic due to the large number of European countries who take part in an ARR that the US would join in the future. Who knows when that may be.


There is a law on the books in California that addresses this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Resale_Royalty_Act

There are a lot of articles that suggest it is not a success... for various reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/arts/design/artists-file-suit-against-sothebys-christies-and-ebay.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


It obviously needs work...

Lenny

[cowanw]

Does a speculative collector of a new, possibly up and coming artist get a risk discount in case the new artist fizzles?
Would the artist get a percentage of an inheritance value, as the state collects inheritance tax?
Would the artist make up the part of a loss on a resale, if it is sold at a loss?

[DrTang]

The artist then runs the risk of making a lot of angry customers/ supports of their art with that route.

or not having any customers at all with nonsense like that

[Corran]

I wouldn't support this. In fact we have too many copyright laws for too long of a time as it is, in my opinion.
Sale of a piece of art is a one-time, large-sum deal, and the artist gets most of that money (minus gallery fees possibly, and cost of materials). In comparison, a writer or composer for instance gets paid per sale of their work at very small prices, with a large cut taken by the publisher. At the end of the day it likely balances out.

And there's also then the sticky situation of continued "royalty" payments to heirs? For how long? What percentage? They didn't make the art, why should they get a "cut?" This is an ongoing problem in all arenas, especially as it pertains to rights of usage and the sale thereof.

As it stands I personally think all copyright laws need to be pared down. The majority of copyright income is NOT the original content creator or even their family - it is big businesses and holding companies. Just investigate the history of "Happy Birthday" to get a better sense of how copyright is milked for money by people not at all related to the creator.

Edit: plus, where does it stop? What qualifies as art, for royalty purposes? How about industrial design - that's "art" for some people. Will I have to pay a small royalty to Giorgetto Giugiaro if I sell a Nikon F4 on eBay?

[Jeff Dexheimer]

A just my opinion, and likely not a popular one... I think artist resale royalties is a terrible idea.

For tangible art, the buyer buys it and owns the physical product. At that point, the product is theirs and theirs alone. If you didn't want them to take ownership of your work of art, you should not have sold it to them. If this was a law, I could only see the possibilities. Want to buy a new car? You sell your used one and have to pay GM a royalty for their automotive "work of art." Have a garage sale and want to get rid of some DVD's you never watch? Now you owe each movie house their royalties. The possibilities are endless

Don't even thing for a second that companies are people all over would cash in if there were a law specifying artist resale royalties. It is impossible to define art, so the resale law would cover nearly everything created.

[Jim Jones]

Droit de Suite or droit du seigneur, they both benefit a select few at the top while those at the bottom support a system in which they may get screwed.

[Merg Ross]

This thread reminded me of a recent experience. While perusing the Internet, I came across the sale of five of my prints in an auction held at Christie's in London late last year. How could that be? I finally figured out how they arrived at auction, and ultimately sold for $1,300 as a lot.

Years ago, fifty in fact, I had sent a few 8x10 contact prints for consideration in the 1963 PHOTOGRAPHY YEAR BOOK published by Photography magazine (Great Britain). A print was chosen and a hardbound copy was received many months later.

The editor of both the magazine and YEAR BOOK was Norman Hall, a pleasant and knowledgeable individual with a keen interest in creative photography. What appears to have happened is that the submissions were not returned and later became part of Norman Hall's Estate, with his heirs sending them to auction. I noticed a Brett Weston print at auction, which was also reproduced in the 1963 YEAR BOOK.

So, I shall await my royalty payment!

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/photographs/merg-ross-abstractions-1950s-5718131-details.aspx?pos=7&intObjectID=5718131&sid=&page=4

[Tin Can]

Good news Merg!

While the coin will be small, it's not just the thought that counts.

[Bill_1856]

So, I shall await my royalty payment!

[l]

Meanwhile, don't quit yer day job.

[Maris Rusis]

In a sense droit de suite can be considered fair pay for work done.

A beginning artist will sell their first works for a pittance; perhaps to fund a decent meal. Then for the next forty years they produce great work, pursue critical endorsement, have public exhibitions, tread the self-promotion mill, and become famous. By this path an artist builds enormous value into the works they sold early and cheap. The artist is working, in effect, for the collector and for the collectors fortune. I reckon the artist deserves a cut of the action.

[DrTang]

that's called 'payin dues'

[Lenny Eiger]

that's called 'payin dues'

Yes, but after paying your dues, there should be some sort of benefit. Artists often do their work with a spirit of contributing to their world. I certainly felt this way. Pieces that show some sort of meaning or deliver some insight are prized. This is a gift that keeps on giving.

I'm 62 and as a result of being an artist for the last 50 years I have nothing to show for it. I'll be working until I'm dead. I'm not particularly happy about it. As smart as I may be at some things, I feel stupid at life. A small part of me thinks I should never have bothered with the art. The world doesn't want what I have to offer, or doesn't value it. TV is apparently more important than anything.

I have known some gallery owners that are great, but the majority I have met are uninformed, egotistical asses and greedy. Commissions for most products range from 10-30%, they get 50% or more. Now I don't begrudge them the ability to earn a living, but they often care little for the work they present, or the people that support them. In the old days they used to actually promote them but these days they expect the artist to do all the work. I'm being polite, some of the gallery owners are truly disgusting, in a variety of ways.

So it seems like the story in this thread is that there are people that want to protect the gallery owners and curators, etc., and people that are out for the artists. Trickle down vs people and all that. If the galleries (just like the multi-nationals) actually acted in a way that supports people, it might be a good argument. However, the number of serious artists that have no money in their later years is a known fact, and legislation like this, if properly applied, would go some way down the road to help the situation. (If one cares about people, after all.)

Lenny

[Tin Can]

+1000 Lenny!

Thanks for the honesty. Very much appreciated.

[Corran]

It seems to me that if people don't want an artists work, resale royalties aren't really going to be a concern?

[Lenny Eiger]

It seems to me that if people don't want an artists work, resale royalties aren't really going to be a concern?

This is true. However, one has to ask why art is not liked. My opinion is that this country doesn't value art the way that it should. There are clear reasons for this, some that are political, and some that have to do with what I view as the degradation of our culture. Of course, some fault lies with the art world and their opinions about what art is..

It was Reagan who suggested that art was fine, as long as one didn't have to pay for it. He cancelled the CETA program one month into his first term. I was in NYC at the time doing a platinum printing company and it put me right out of business.

There are plenty of things I could mention about this or that, but the long and short of it is that our culture does not value the arts. Maybe because its not on TV. When budgets are cut at High Schools, programs for the arts go first. As individuals we seem to value the art, but as a society we have no use for it. We appreciate the beauty of movement our sports figures embody; but 2D art is apparently so last century....

The collective IQ of our country has gone down considerably. I think people vote against their interests, they are unaware of the issues, and the consequences that will follow. People are less and less connected, less nice to each other, and care less for anyone else's plight. Someone suggested a certain party was "empathy disabled". Regardless of the veracity of the statement, or whether it could apply to both parties, which is highly likely, I think our star is falling rapidly.

Lenny

[Corran]

A similar argument is made regarding classical music. Younger generations do not care and do not want to go to the symphony.

I have taught a high school "music appreciation" course. It turned me off completely from a teaching career (after just having finished a teaching degree...).

However, not all artists are going to make it...just like not all new composers are going to be successful. I don't think a comprehensive artist resale royalty package would change that, or should.

I'm trying real hard here not to talk about the politics aspect with some of this soooo I'll stop now.

[Lenny Eiger]

However, not all artists are going to make it...just like not all new composers are going to be successful. I don't think a comprehensive artist resale royalty package would change that, or should.

Believe it or not, I am also trying to keep politics out, maybe not so successfully.

I agree, not all artists should make it. This that have nothing useful to say can keep their thoughts to themselves, I suppose. I do think that the royalty would help, altho' maybe just a little. Having a structure for an art "career" might no be a bad thing, either, something a bit more predictable.

I think the real issue is whether art is useful to a culture.

I obviously think it is. I think we here in the US need it desperately. We live in a world of bottom lines and fiduciary responsibility to stockholders. When we (or the corporations we work for) are only concerned with the financial aspects then life is a bore. Certainly the financials are important, and I would add more important than I thought they were, but there are many other things that make up a life well-lived.

Lenny

[gregmo]

I do think that the royalty would help, altho' maybe just a little.

Lenny

Every bit helps considering most artists make various amounts from a number of different revenue streams thru their work. Combined, it hopefully gives them the freedom to continue to create what they want.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Lenny, I couldn't disagree with you more. I am not going into much detail because it's is late, I am tired and I work early tomorrow.

Life is what you make of it and so is art. If you want to be down on the world, that is your choice. Truthfully, the world today is hardly different than the world of the past. Sure, today we have fancy gizmos they never had in the past, but all that has done is changed the face of the humanity, it's soul is still the same. The majority of people today are as self serving as they were in the past. You can dwell on those people and the negatives, or you can ignore them and embrace the people that live to a higher standard.

[Corran]

Amen Jeff. Words to live by. I got too bogged down in negativity early in my life. I can't get those years back. I try to be way more positive now.

[Tin Can]

I am getting the feeling the differences here are generational.

I for one am glad to be on the short end.

[analoguey]

I for one am glad to be on the short end.

Slightly off-topic but what does that translate to?

[jp]

Slightly off-topic but what does that translate to?

Sounds like those two sentences together mean he takes pride in being a codger.

[Tin Can]

Slightly off-topic but what does that translate to?

Being on the 'short end' is a contraction of being on the 'short end of the stick'. (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/end-of-the-stick.html)

In my usage here, it means I won't live long enough to enjoy this entire century, which also means I am old and in the way.

Bless, our children, they will need it.

[Corran]

...I won't live long enough to enjoy this entire century

Neither will most of us here!! :p

[Tin Can]

This is primarily for Corran (Bryan) and concerns how the music industry is affected with digital freedom. royalties and theft. (http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/6304054/op-ed-does-bittorrent-actually-want-to-empower-artists)

BitTorrent for you non linkers.

Imagine 3D printing as it evolves to life size and beyond. Even sculpture will be easily stolen and copied. A sculpture by Auguste Rodin on every lawn!

Actually I am all for science and technology as it is our only hope for the future.

I also imagine even construction workers being displaced with laser demolition and massive 3D printing using the dust that remains. Of course we may need more juice, or maybe not.

[Tin Can]

Neither will most of us here!! :p

Bryan I think you are 30, you may see 90% of this century.

[analoguey]

I think I understand it better now, thanks! I had got the ' short end of the stick'part - couldn't relate it to the artist and royalties here - as in whether you were saying you agreed there shouldn't be any and hence you were on the short end side or otherwise.
Your last post clarifies that, if I understand correctly.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Slightly off-topic but what does that translate to?

I'm guessing that Randy's perspective is seeing little time left in life. That's the short end. OTOH, his view might be, as mine is, that we have no idea whether we will awake for the next sunrise.

The generation thing. Well, I'm a young sixty-eight years-old and like very many here I have lived through a world-wide revolution of exposure to art and ideas, although lately much the art was via a computer monitor. That is still a good thing but I do worry that the monitor experience is seriously diminished. (Last week I went to a large show of A. Adams' work, some of which I had never seen. Tours of university students were making the rounds with notepads and chatter which is worth a separate article.)

When I was much younger, art was about going out of our way to be there in galleries and performances. My mother in particular was an art lover. Some of those experiences are burned into my consciousness such that I dream-recall them in color. However, most of what we saw were the distillations of the curators, historians, critics and marketeers while today there is a somewhat more democratic, eclectic quality that I suspect we take for granted and unfairly compare to the authoritative works of our youth.

Just a thought.
Hoping for another sunrise,
Jac

[Jim Jones]

I am getting the feeling the differences here are generational.

I for one am glad to be on the short end.

Me, too. As a kid I witnessed some of the accomplishments of America during WWII. The nation had a grand common goal that demanded cooperative effort. Now there is more, "me first, screw you," and other less obnoxious self-indulgences. On the other hand, today's opportunities would have been mind-boggling a generation or two ago. Someone with a computer and a thirst for knowledge can get a free education online better tailored to one's interest than any college or university offers. They can also spend every free moment downloading music and videos or playing games.

[Corran]

Randy, regarding BitTorrent (and similar p2p sharing methods - I grew up with Napster!), I think it's a great thing. I have many times downloaded an album because I was interested in it, and giving everything a listen, bought the CD (and sometimes the vinyl!). And I still keep the downloaded songs because it's already tagged/cataloged in my system - the CD goes in the car or whatever. I mean come on, folks were recording to tape radio/other tapes/CDs for years. Nothing new.

[Tin Can]

I think I understand it better now, thanks! I had got the ' short end of the stick'part - couldn't relate it to the artist and royalties here - as in whether you were saying you agreed there shouldn't be any and hence you were on the short end side or otherwise.
Your last post clarifies that, if I understand correctly.

You do understand, and this thread is about royalties and I have deliberately removed myself from any possible royalties by 'not selling any art'. I did sell 4 sculptures once for materials cost. At first I was happy, then I realized I had sold far too cheaply and now I dearly miss the 4 objects as they were part of a 9 piece set. Of that set, I destroyed 2 as they were so large, storage was a major issue. I gave one to a friend in hopes it will survive and I have 2 left here in my studio. I just checked on them. Still there!

Then I gave up sculpture as an unwieldy storage problem. I moved into digital and physical time work. But even Digital anything requires a massive costly storage system. Now I primarily analog print photographs and am finding even paper and negatives piles up. I throw out a lot of my production.

I sure am glad I don't have to make a living from Art.

I respect those that do make that struggle and I know many 'starving' artists.

[Tin Can]

Randy, regarding BitTorrent (and similar p2p sharing methods - I grew up with Napster!), I think it's a great thing. I have many times downloaded an album because I was interested in it, and giving everything a listen, bought the CD (and sometimes the vinyl!). And I still keep the downloaded songs because it's already tagged/cataloged in my system - the CD goes in the car or whatever. I mean come on, folks were recording to tape radio/other tapes/CDs for years. Nothing new.

Profits are rare. Most musicians now make their pittance touring.

Some of my musician friends and they are legion, print vanity vinyl and make nothing even when they do sell it.

Around here, musician is a lifestyle.

Maybe we are all court jesters, performing at our King's pleasure. Keep dancing, for your life.

[Corran]

Well of course. Just like artists, only the rare few musicians will make "real money." We could of course talk for days about the record labels and profit sharing, etc...
I always say to young rock band guys, if you don't like how much money you make playing/touring/selling CDs, try having several degrees in "flute." That brings a new meaning to "no jobs." :cool:

[gregmo]

Well of course. Just like artists, only the rare few musicians will make "real money." We could of course talk for days about the record labels and profit sharing, etc...
I always say to young rock band guys, if you don't like how much money you make playing/touring/selling CDs, try having several degrees in "flute." That brings a new meaning to "no jobs." :cool:

Bryan, you might enjoy the 30 Seconds to Mars documentary "Artifact." It covers their lawsuit with their label & discusses issues about going independent or resigning while working on their 3rd album.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Actually I am all for science and technology as it is our only hope for the future...Nah, "our" only hope for the future (homo sapiens) is for there to be a lot fewer of us around. Exact opposite of the current trend.

As far as the planet goes, I'm not worried at all. Wait some millions of years after we extinguish ourselves; it'll recover fine. :)

[Tin Can]

Nah, "our" only hope for the future (homo sapiens) is for there to be a lot fewer of us around. Exact opposite of the current trend.

As far as the planet goes, I'm not worried at all. Wait some millions of years after we extinguish ourselves; it'll recover fine. :)

You will get your wish, but we will still need science and technology. Camp fire is tech as is fishing.

But we are safe here. (http://www.universetoday.com/107791/will-the-sun-explode/)

[Sal Santamaura]

You will get your wish...Not my wish, just the natural consequence of our species' behavior.


...But we are safe here. (http://www.universetoday.com/107791/will-the-sun-explode/)Whether or not our species extinguishes itself before then, when those billions of years have passed (not the mere millions I mentioned) the sun, planets and everyone who ever lived on earth will rejoin the cosmos as stardust. There is no "safe." :D

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny, I couldn't disagree with you more. I am not going into much detail because it's is late, I am tired and I work early tomorrow.

Life is what you make of it and so is art. If you want to be down on the world, that is your choice. Truthfully, the world today is hardly different than the world of the past. Sure, today we have fancy gizmos they never had in the past, but all that has done is changed the face of the humanity, it's soul is still the same. The majority of people today are as self serving as they were in the past. You can dwell on those people and the negatives, or you can ignore them and embrace the people that live to a higher standard.

Jeff, thanks for this. It's always great when someone disagrees in a way that allows one (me) to re-evaluate the original statement. Since you made this post, I have had a series of events unfold.

Before I recount, there are things I think are true... I have much less spending power than my parents did, or that people did in the 60's for example. Corporate profits are up, incomes of the middle class are down. This is not my imagination, but established fact.

However, since I was bellyaching about how I didn't get what I wanted from life, my culture, etc.

• I spoke to my daughter, who is a freshman in college, and she isn't getting what she expected, either. the language used was strikingly similar...
• I saw a movie which had the phrase "only the closed mind is certain".
• I spoke to the daughter of my Mother's caregiver, who lives in a remote village in Jamaica, and got to consider what choices (or lack of choices) are available to her.
• I had long talks with a few friends and my wife about how they deal with these issues. Most had no idea.

And in the end, I thought, well, that's just life, you don't get what yo want, get over it. I resolved to be more happy...

So thanks. Thanks for being polite, and patient. I learned something...

Lenny

[Tin Can]

Ah, I cannot help but respond with video poetry. Dylan Thomas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mRec3VbH3w

[Jim Jones]

Life is good, and getting better. I live in a tumbledown 122-year-old farmhouse where my father was born in 1894. For most of his life he did not have electricity. We did have running cold water in those days if there was enough breeze for the windmill. Hot water was heated on a kitchen stove. I remember the 1932 Chevvy that was probably worn out when replaced with a new 1940 model. Even that one was in poor shape before it reached 100,000 miles. We did get a John Deere model B tractor in 1939, but for some tasks horses were more useful. The JD didn't have lights, so even when the fields needed preparation, its workday was limited to daylight hours. Before and after then there were endless chores to do. Until the 1940s we heated and cooked with firewood. It takes a huge woodpile to make it through northern Missouri winters. We wasted no time watching television; there was none in the house until about 1970. We had all we really needed, and wanted for little more. Yes, life was good back then, but it's much better now.

[Tin Can]

I once knew a drunk, who always said, 'I never had a bad day in my life.'

I now agree with him, but it took me years to get here.

A few of those winters were spent in north woods cabin, where my father told me, 'Wood always heats twice, once when chopped and again when burned. Go cut wood'.

And we did hike a flat mile in deep snow to get to paradise.

'You Can't Go Home Again.' Thomas Wolfe

[Tin Can]

More news on the battle of basic rights.

Your rights to your Art.


http://hyperallergic.com/172688/could-a-long-forgotten-contract-settle-the-resale-royalties-debate/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Could+a+Long-Forgotten+Contract+Settle+the+Artist+Resale+Royalties+Debate&utm_content=Could+a+Long-Forgotten+Contract+Settle+the+Artist+Resale+Royalties+Debate+CID_c085fde771eae67206dd14926b922f03&utm_source=HyperallergicNewsletter&utm_term=Could%20a%20Long-Forgotten%20Contract%20Settle%20the%20Artist%20Resale%20Royalties%20Debate

[gbogatko]

Randy Moe said: "I have deliberately removed myself from any possible royalties by 'not selling any art'."

That's one approach. When you hang a piece, label it "not for sale" -- and mean it.
Sort of a "strike" except strikes usually imply withholding something that others (a lot of others) want. If I ever do put up stuff for viewing, that's what I'm going to put on the label "not for sale."

[Tin Can]

Randy Moe said: "I have deliberately removed myself from any possible royalties by 'not selling any art'."

That's one approach. When you hang a piece, label it "not for sale" -- and mean it.
Sort of a "strike" except strikes usually imply withholding something that others (a lot of others) want. If I ever do put up stuff for viewing, that's what I'm going to put on the label "not for sale."

It can start with one Artist. :)