Madam, - I am astonished by the virulent opposition of the art trade to the introduction of "droit de suite", or artists resale rights, even to the extent that the Institute of Irish Auctioneers and Valuers suggested to its members that they should break the law by refusing to give artists information on sales of their work.
This opposition cannot be just about money, since the sums involved are paltry and the new regulations state clearly that the vendor and not the auctioneer is liable to pay the royalty.
Also, any argument that the introduction of resale rights will damage the art trade has been flatly contradicted by recent evidence. Earlier this year two major Irish art sales in London by Sothebys and Christies posted exceptional results, yet resale rights had already been introduced by the UK government.
Perhaps we have to look elsewhere to find some motivation for this antagonism.
The art trade is one of the last trades in the world that is unregulated - unlike even the stock exchange! In recent times the great international auction houses have been in trouble with the law; leading figures have been jailed for running cartels, yet all calls for regulation and control have been successfully resisted. Could it be that art professionals fear that the successful operation of "droit de suite" will introduce a modicum of transparency into the trade?
The assertion by Alan Cooke of the IAVI (September 4th) that "droit de suite" is not about copyright but is about ownership of property is simply not correct - and that is not just my opinion. EU Directive 2001/84/EC clearly states that "in the field of copyright the resale right is an unassignable and inalienable right, enjoyed by the author of an original work of graphic or plastic art, to an economic interest in successive sales of the work concerned".
Mr Cooke's other suggestion that, in terms of copyright, visual artists "are more akin to architects and engineers than to authors and composers" is, I'm afraid, totally disingenuous.
When a property resells and makes a profit for the vendor there are many reasons behind this increase in value. Auctioneers themselves talk about "location, location, location". Frequently, when a property is bought, any buildings on the site are demolished to make way for future development, and sadly, often many buildings have been constructed without the involvement of an architect at all.
With a work of art the context couldn't be more different. If, at auction, the value of a painting increases there can be only one cause for that increase: the creative input and reputation of the author.
Finally, I take exception to the suggestion that, as a "successful artist", I have been campaigning for this right simply to enrich myself. For the record, I and many other Irish artists have been campaigning for the introduction of "droit de suite" for over 20 years, because it is, as its name suggests, a right!
I find the criticism by the Institute of Auctioneers and Valuers of so-called "successful artists" enriching themselves at the expense of the "artistic community as a whole" rather hypocritical when set against its own actions. The institute successfully lobbied the Government to set the threshold for the implementation of "droit de suite" at €3,000, whereas most artists, successful or otherwise, had called for a lower threshold so that a greater majority of artists, especially the lesser-known ones, would benefit from the provision. - Yours, etc,
ROBERT BALLAGH, Broadstone, Dublin 7.