Artist's resale right derogation - the IPKat was wrong

The IPKat's prophetic properties must be on the wane. In November, following at UK IPO consultation, the IPKat reported that 90% of respondents favoured ending the derogation from the resale right covering dead artists. The IPKat said that he 'has no doubt which way the Government will decide this issue'. It therefore came as a surprise to the IPKat to read of this letter, from John Denham, the Secretary of State for Universities, Innovation and Skills, to EU Commissioner, Charlie McCreey, asking for a two year extension of the derogation.

The fragile state of the UK art market, and the fear that sales will be diverted to New York or Geneva if the derogation is lifted is given as the reason. The letter also argues that if the UK art market declines then living artists will also suffer. However, Mr Denham also states that the UK backs the EU's attempts to get WIPO to consider making the resale right 'compulsory throughout the world'.

The IPKat wonders whether, in current economic conditions, the resale right will be the thing which is decisive as to where a sale takes place. Surely at least as important will be the value (or lack thereof) of the respective countries' currencies. Either way, he reckons that if the resale right really is that significant, the EU are going to have a hard job convincing WIPO members to take on the right. Merpel asks, is this the first IP policy to be directly shaped by the credit crunch?
Artist's resale right derogation - the IPKat was wrong Artist's resale right derogation - the IPKat was wrong Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, January 02, 2009 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Given WIPO's long standing stalemate on AV performance rights and broadcasters' rights treaties, I wouldn't expect much interest at all in an artist’s resale rights treaty - which would be even more controversial and even less necessary than either of the above.

    Moreover, there is important and urgent work to be done on limitations and exceptions, including for the blind. That is where WIPO should put its copyright priorities.



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:

Powered by Blogger.