Now the art and antiques industry must wait and see how successful those who have been fighting their corner have been in limiting the damage the European Union directive will inflict when it comes into force at the beginning of next year.
The directive as a whole is compulsory, but as Whitehall weighs up the arguments from all sides, politicians and civil servants will have the discretion to adapt some details to suit the UK. It is these details that have been the subject of fierce debate between the British Art Market Federation, representing the art and antiques industry, and the Design and Artists Copyright Society.
What is certain is that come January 1, 2006, auctioneers and dealers will have to set up an acceptable system of collection and payment of the levy on the resale of some works by living artists. Later, the system will be extended to cover works by artists who have been dead for less than 70 years.
Key points
As always, the devil is in the detail, but the key areas of dispute have been:
• the threshold at which the levy should apply. BAMF say it should not apply to works of art sold below €3000, DACS want it set at €1000;
• the likely benefits to artists set against the threat to the art market. DACS say a cap of €12,500 per transaction will prevent art sales draining abroad and that administration costs to small businesses will prove negligible. BAMF say this approach is simplistic and fails to take into account many factors which will leave British trade exposed. BAMF further argue that DACS have got their sums wrong in promoting the benefits to artists and costs to auction houses and dealers. Red tape is also an issue;
• goldplating. This is where civil service proposals risk making the EU directive even more stringent than Brussels expects. Such changes would make things worse for trade and are expressly against Government policy;
• Derogation. The most important concession won by the UK Government in Europe, it allows us to hold back from paying droit de suite on the works of dead artists until 2010 or even 2012. BAMF want it held in check until the EU persuades the US and Switzerland to introduce droit de suite. DACS want the derogation cancelled.
• Collective management of royalty payments. Currently there is an EU investigation into the practices of collecting agencies. BAMF wants any decision on this policy to be delayed until the findings of the investigation are made public. BAMF also argues that there are a number of risks in creating a monopoly for one agency to collect the royalty. It will also mean that artists will not have the choice of collecting it direct from their dealer but will have to pay a 25 per cent levy to receive it through the agency. DACS dismiss BAMF’s arguments and say that there will be no monopoly position because more than one agency could collect the royalty – but DACS are the only agency in the UK.
• Collection fees. DACS argue these should be a flat rate 25 per cent. BAMF say this is illogical as administration costs do not change dramatically simply because a work of art is more expensive. Either the artist with the cheaper work is paying too little, or the one the more expensive work paying too much.
The full text of BAMF’s consultation submission to the Patent Office, along with potted briefing notes, is now available on by following this link BAMF’s consultation
Government to review details of art resale levy
MONTHS of lobbying and debate over droit de suite have now come to an an end. Parties on all sides have submitted their views to the Patent Office on how the art resale levy should be introduced into the UK and administered.
