Posted on 03/05/2009 7:43:43 AM PST by reaganaut1
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Patty Milich, a state employee, spent five months trying to give $80 to painter Rick Stitch.
An unassuming arts administrator, Ms. Milich leads a double life as California's official art sleuth. The job tracking down abstract expressionists is an unintended consequence of a little-known 1977 law designed to cut artists in on the profits from the resale of their works.
When a work of art is resold in the state, or by a California resident, the seller must set aside 5% of the gross selling price to pay the artist. The law applies to any resale of $1,000 or more within 20 years of an artist's death, so long as the sale isn't between dealers.
In theory, the law is a boon for artists. In practice, it means Ms. Milich sometimes must spend months trying to deliver paltry sums to people who have faded into obscurity, moved abroad or simply don't want to be bothered.
...
The payments can run into the tens of thousands of dollars but usually are more modest, about $300 to $400, Ms. Milich says. Galleries and dealers who can't find the artists are supposed to send the cash to the Arts Council, which holds it in escrow while it tries to locate them. About $250,000 has come to the state agency to pass on to artists.
Millions more due artists may have leaked out of the system. Many buyers and sellers don't know about the law; others simply ignore it. Some sellers deliberately pick locations outside California to sell their works in order to avoid paying the royalty, arts lawyers say.
Many artists whose names Ms. Milich receives are tracked down after a quick database search. About one-third of the cases require work that can go on for months.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Wow. Every time it's sold, the artist is supposed to get money.
I hope I'm correct when I say "Only in California government would this make sense."
(It's generally a good idea to check your state Lost Funds office every year or thereabouts, just in case. I got $140 that had gotten lost in the mail and returned to the sender once.)
Every time it's sold, the original builder gets 5%.
How about auto makers?
Oh, crap, I'm giving them ideas...
Patty Milich is a state employee.
How many tax dollars is she really worth?
How many tax dollars is her WORK really worth?
How many tax dollars does she THINK she is really worth?
Do you notice the writer doesn’t even NOTICE the waste of time and tax dollars here?
As my friend Derek likes to point out, “Art today can be a booger with a hair in it!”
HAHAHA! Priceless!
In a truly free market when you buy something it is yours and you can do anything you want with it, if the artist wants more money from a painting then put a steep price on it to begin with and if it doesn’t sell, oh well.
This whole concept beggars the imagination for a response. Only the prissy, self-absorbed, sippers-of-life could possibly have dreamed up such a waste of time, talent and recourses.
I bet it makes them 'feel' good, though.
that was my first thought as well.
CA is a screwy place.
New York is spending over 10 times what California spends on its Art Council. Go there to see what your state spends on the arts.
And if that doesn't make your blood boil look at this: What the Stimulus holds for the Arts
It’s not just spending on the “arts” that I question, though frankly I see little reason to fund “artists” who can’t compete in the free market. What I thought was strange was that this tax seemed to fly in the face of the “doctrine of first sale”. This has been fully adjudicated by the supreme court. I wonder how this tax passes muster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.