[HN Gopher] Droit de Suite
___________________________________________________________________
Droit de Suite
Author : brk
Score : 18 points
Date : 2023-04-25 11:52 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| lordnacho wrote:
| Why would you need a special law for this? Put it in the sales
| contract. Football clubs do the same when they sell a young
| player.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| There are cases where there are time limits on certain kinds of
| contracts. Maybe this would limit such a contract. I don't
| really know though.
| axlee wrote:
| Because laws are there to fix asymmetries in negotiation power
| between parties. As you can imagine, artists and art
| collectors/galleries are not really on the same level.
| jsdwarf wrote:
| A sales contract is always a bilateral agreement between two
| clubs. Hence you cannot stipulate that the selling club will
| earn a share in _ALL_ future sales of the player. Only a law
| could do that.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| I'd love to see this x-ray:
|
| > The painter Salvador Dali had a particular attachment to
| Millet's The Angelus, and he also had a premonition about it. He
| saw in the shape of its figures and the hue of its light a scene
| of mourning, not just work and prayer. This was not a widely
| accepted interpretation until, sure enough, the Louvre had the
| painting examined by x-ray, and the outline of a child's coffin
| could be seen under the basket of potatoes. The steeple in the
| distance, too, was a late addition.
| jccooper wrote:
| https://www.religionenlibertad.com/blog/57334/angelus-jeanfr...
|
| It's kinda there, if you look closely. Quite noisy, though.
| [deleted]
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Isn't this what some NFTs tried to do in contract form, the
| minter would in perpetuity get a percentage of resales?
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Sure, but once created, a painting isn't burning resources by
| just existing, nor is the provenance of a piece of art nor a
| contract.
|
| But y'know what these crowds are like, one week it's "crypto
| gud. invest in me startup that uses NFTs or ERC-20 tokens to
| XYZ", the next it's "nobody here ever supported NFTs or crypto,
| I don't know what you're talking about". Selective memory
| abounds, throw around buzzwords like "rentseeking" like the
| company they dev SaaS for isn't doing that.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Oh, I'm not endorsing it, was just noting the similarity.
| jgeada wrote:
| Basically rent seeking behavior, expecting perpetual payment for
| work completed in the past (aka passive income)
|
| Why stop at paintings, what renders a painting more deserving of
| payments in perpetuity for the author over, say a chair or some
| piece of furniture. Or a car, or any of the other myriad of goods
| people make.
| basisword wrote:
| >> Basically rent seeking behavior, expecting perpetual payment
| for work completed in the past (aka passive income)
|
| Sounds like most SaaS companies.
|
| >> Why stop at paintings, what renders a painting more
| deserving of payments in perpetuity for the author over, say a
| chair or some piece of furniture. Or a car, or any of the other
| myriad of goods people make.
|
| The fact that those things can be replicated and/or mass
| produced? If it was a one-off handcrafted car or piece of
| furniture then I agree, it should be covered under the same
| law.
| mcculley wrote:
| >> Basically rent seeking behavior, expecting perpetual
| payment for work completed in the past (aka passive income)
|
| > Sounds like most SaaS companies.
|
| Most SaaS companies have perpetually recurring costs of their
| own (e.g., storage, compute, bandwidth, security updates).
| egypturnash wrote:
| Most artists have perpetually recurring costs too: rent,
| subscriptions to digital tools, food, etc.
| mcculley wrote:
| Indeed. An artist should set the price of a piece sold
| with these costs in mind.
| clipsy wrote:
| An art buyer should negotiate the purchase price with
| _droit de suite_ in mind.
| mcculley wrote:
| Certainly, if the transaction takes place in a
| jurisdiction where it applies.
| blargey wrote:
| People need land. Nobody needs that one painting.
|
| It's pretty clearly a way to allow the artist (or their heirs,
| in the event of their passing) to benefit from their works
| being labeled Valuable long after they parted with it for a
| commodity price, instead of solely profiting some "art
| investor". The exact opposite of serving the smarmy capitalist
| class that your label of "rent seeking" conjures.
| clipsy wrote:
| > Basically rent seeking behavior, expecting perpetual payment
| for work completed in the past (aka passive income)
|
| So just like copyright, then?
| llsf wrote:
| Are all rent seeking bad by essence ?
|
| For art, I see it more as a way for the artist to focus on his
| art, and allowing to sell (even cheap) his art, and still be
| rewarded (e.g. 5%) each time his art changes hand if it does
| hold value.
|
| It does not have to be in perpetuity as explained in the
| article, it can stop after the death of the artist or 50 years
| (to prevent incentive to kill artists).
|
| You do not have to stop at paintings. Some NFTs implement
| royalties too. It would be more difficult though to implement
| on fungible items (cars, etc.) but some chairs are unique piece
| of arts and could probably benefit from the Droit de Suite.
| dataflow wrote:
| > expecting perpetual payment for work completed in the past
| (aka passive income)
|
| I'm not sure there's anything _inherently_ wrong with this.
| Imagine if you made a car and "sold" it to me for $100, on the
| condition that I pay you $30k if/when I resell it. I'd think
| that would be actually incredibly nice of you. I wouldn't think
| you're somehow a worse person for selling it under those terms
| rather than demanding a $30k payment today. You're lowering my
| initial barrier at the expense of recouping some of the payment
| when I resell it. That's not inherently bad.
|
| Of course you can do this in an exploitative way too; no doubt
| about that. But determining this requires analyzing many more
| factors than just the licensing or pricing model.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Why something like a piece of furniture for this example?
|
| Why not the infamous Nike logo? Designed for $35 by student
| Carolyn Davidson.
|
| She was later compensated _heavily_ , and so she should have
| been. It was the morally right thing to do.
|
| Would it have been "rentseeking behaviour" for her to ask to
| be compensated? No. It'd have been reasonable. At $35 and a
| student, that would have otherwise been exploitation.
|
| Artists and artisans are exploited constantly. I don't think
| laws like these are unreasonable. If the object still
| commands value, and there's only one of it, why shouldn't the
| artist be compensated? They can only create x works in their
| lifetime, at some point they must retire.
| anorphirith wrote:
| A perfect example of "Se reposer sur ses lauriers" ...rest on
| one's laurels
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-27 23:01 UTC)