Deirdre Kilroy (LK Shields, Dublin) has told the IPKat about some juicy Irish litigation over the EU resale royalty right. Directive 2001/84, which requires EU Member States to legislate for artists to be able to receive a share of the resale of their art works. should have been implemented on 1 January 2006. The Irish - who in former times were said to have no word for "mañana" because that concept conveyed too great a degree of urgency - have still not implemented the Directive. Now artist Robert ("Riverdance") Ballagh has commenced legal proceedings against the State for its failure to implement the Directive on time, maintaining that he is facing financial loss. Counsel for Mr Ballagh says his client has a painting currently up for sale with a guide price of between €20,000 and €30,000, for which no droit de suite can yet be levied.
Below: Robert Ballagh's "Homage to Inges". An art critic writes, er .. it seems he's better at bosoms than he is at faces.
Merpel adds, if you can organise five entries for the Eurovision Song Contest in the time you can't organise one small Bill, this speaks volumes for the superiority of private enterprise over public endeavour.
The IPKat and Merpel agree on something else: the IP Enforcement Directive provides for collective actions on behalf of aggrieved rights owners in infringement proceedings. They hope that forcing governments to implement IP legislation is also something that can be shouldered by collective actions rather than leaving it to the initiative - and the expense - of an individual litigant such as Mr Ballagh.
More on Robert Ballagh here
Find impoverished artists here
The IPKat mentioned the other day how company name Helphire could be read either as help-hire (which is what it intended) or as hel-phire (which is how the Kat instantly visualised it); he asked readers if they know of any further examples of this phenomenon.
BALLAGH BLASTS THE TARDY STATE; AMBIGUOUS TO READ
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html