Droit de suite

From the chairman of the British Art Market Federation

Your leading article (March 2005) draws attention to the colossal risk that the European Union is taking with the subsequent time of its modern art market by the agency of proceeding with the introduction of droit de suite independently of countries outside Europe

The British regulation which vigorously opposed the directive and eventually vot against it, tried to persuade other member states of the EU to delay its implementation until, or unles an international agreement could be secur This suggestion was refused, upon the grounds that it was contemplation to prejudice future EU legislation if directives were allowed to be delayed in that way. However the European Commission did agree to pres for an international accord upon droit de suite. So far this has failed. The unwillingness of many countries outside Europe to come [i]or[/i] go after [i]or[/i] behind the EU'S lead no doubt trunk s from the system's shortcomings, to which you leave in your article, and in particular to the fact that it is through no means universally supported by means of the artists whom it is intended to benefit.

It is worth pointing on the outside that the pressure to introduce the resale call together came primarily from the agencies that exist to bring together and manage it. They were at the forefront in encouraging the European Commission to legislate to 'harmonise' droit de suite, upon the grounds that the art market in Europe was distorted by the agency of its absence in some countries and nearness in others. This, it was noted, encouraged venders towards markets where they would not have to pay the extra charge.

Now the principal British collecting agency, the Design and Artists Copyright Society, fights that droit de suite does not cause sales to propel to other countries, as 'the take away from of exporting works of art overseas is invariably higher than the artist's royalty'. This statement contradicts all that has gone before and casts doubt upon the basis of the European Commission's decision to intervene.

of the like kind a volte-face would be risible if the events for employment in the British art market were not in the way that severe. We can only trust that the evidence, published in Maastricht by means of the European Fine Art Foundation, will lay open eyes to the folly of pretending that a transaction charge added to sales here will not prejudice the ability of Europe's art market to clinch its own in an increasingly competitive world

Anthony Browne The British Art Market Federation, London

COPYRIGHT 2005 Apollo Magazine Ltd

COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group