Damage to small businesses from the Artist's Resale Right

Signatures 1255 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 26 › »

1. 1
   Name: Niall Fairhead on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments: The extension of the Artists Resale Right to the estates of dead artists is unfair, unjust and unmerited. It is a catastrophe for professional dealers and galleries already hard pressed in difficult economic times.

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Francesca Fiumano on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments: The extension of the Artists Resale right is going to damage the very business that help to establish the reputation of artists. Unjust and unfair.

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Christina Fairhead on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments: There is a wealth of worthy causes out there if one wanted to donate money to, humanitarian or other. Being obliged to provide for Billionaires' heirs and heiresses, however, IS NOT, NOR SHOULD IT BE ONE OF THEM by hard working families!!! Has the world gone mad?

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Elliot Lee on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Nate Brown on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Zuleika Parkin on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Matthew Hall on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Jacqui Lehane on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: John Robertson on Jan 20, 2012

   Comments: This EU Directive is totally counter productive. Contemporary artists incomes will suffer as Galleries close.. strangled by red tape.

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Derek Newman on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments: I object to paying a levy to the heir of an artist who painted a picture in the late 19th Century and who died in the 1940's. My costs incurred by adding value and finding a subsequent purchaser should not benefit an heir who has had nothing whatsoever to do with the transaction. They will have long lost track of the work and might well be impossible to trace. The extension of ARR will reduce profitability, add administrative cost and is nothing less than a tax on my expertise and effort.

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Neil Duguid on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments: This must be opposed, and stopped. In a business with such low profit margins (and not everyone deals in sales of multiple £000's), another 4% wipes pretty much everything off off the art dealers bit. This will leave us no market left except perhaps for the very top end, and these inflations will only have to be added to the customers costs; just when customers are feeling the global financial pinch. Result: jobs will leave the UK; art business in UK destroyed

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Jari Lager on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments: Please do not include me in any newsletters

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: John Brandler on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments: This is typical of beaurocrats This started between the wars & destroyed Paris as the world cente for art dealing , now Europe wants to do the same - the BIG deals will all move to USA / Switzerland ( no charges) and yet again London - AND EUROPE - will loose.

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Basil Makris on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: David Stoddart on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments: We are being taxed out of existence

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Elli Karageorgi on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Hannah Storey on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Mihaela Raynova Radeva on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Irina Toshkova on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Mollie Demott on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Madison Ibarguen on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Louis Singh on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments: If business picks up and we manage to absorb this charge (effectively between 1/5th and 3/5ths of our profit) the gallery may continue, but our ability to promote/represent emerging artisits will be severely compromised. Likewise the individuals employedd and businesses supported - by those artists. And of course the art-buyers of that same generation, will soon find a drastic lack of choice The deceased artists, who make up the majority of our profits, were once, our emerging artists from previous decades. The main beneficiaries of successful artists (in my experience usually their children) invariably become comparatively unproductive members of society, as soon as the parent passes away. The proceeds of Estate sales (often from rapidly rising post-humus prices) extinguishes any previouse need for a self-generated income. in the 80s and 90s we had (Dame) Liz Frink and her son Lin Jammet (based on his own artistic merits) on our books. The death of his mother extinguished the need to work and the creative gene, previously nurtured, vanished. His children and ex-wife benefited...but only financially Apart from the black market, there seem to be no winners. The trans-generational preductivity, of artistic dynastys has already been virtually consigned to the history books. We exist at the taking end of DACS/BRIDGEWOMEN so its not fair I comment there ically; likewise appropriate Probate Lawyers. Whilst I understand there are plenty of dealers/galleries who contribute little to the contemporary art world from which they take;there are more of us who rely on sales of our long time successful artisits to continue the holistic operation. Whilst you may re-coup from these secondary cogs - various galleries and dealers; you also risk taking out an essential part of the machine which fuels the British art world, without prior consultation with those involved didacticaly in the art scene. Artists' fattened calf spouses, their lawyers and the odd opportunist/bottomfeeder provide little, if any, support to the art world. Many galleries do. and are an essential cog in any vibrant and commercial art world. The knock on effects are endless; from plinth maker to van druver. Of course, to be joined, in posterity, by others; starting (logically) with auction houses, authors etc

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Rodrigo Canete on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Alex Peake on Jan 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Lucy Byrne on Jan 22, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Richard Collins on Jan 22, 2012

    Comments: with Aloha!

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: CAILLIEREZ on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments: I completely agree. The small company have enough difficulty.

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: RICHARD on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments: YES.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Harry Moore-Gwyn on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Arif Qureshi on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments: thanks all the team management.

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Denitsa Atanasova on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Deana Roe on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments: Too much red tape from Europe.

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Neil Jennings on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Jo Bennett on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments: Not only does this affect dealers - the whole of the UK art Market is suffereing from an uneven playing field against the US and China. Don't forget the art market is a valuable income for the UK, affecting many jobs.

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Ofer Gildor on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Maria Morrow on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Guy Peppiatt on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Varda Lotan on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Steven Wolf on Jan 23, 2012

    Comments: The artist's resale right is poor economic policy. Few artists make work that has any resale value although it contains substantial aesthetic and social value. The tiny percentage of artists whose work does have resale value are almost all already wealthy from the primary sale of their works. The resale tax simply enriches a few already wealthy artists and diminishes incentive to buy the work of young poorer artists. Shrinking the overall artistic pool.

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Aziz on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments: Thank you so much aziz

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Sarah Percy-Davis on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments: Whilst the moral argument for ARR might at first sound compelling, I have seen first hand the impact of the administrative burnden on small businesses who work hard to support living artists. Now that the right has been extended to dead artists, a further 30% of the membership will be affected. The Bristish Art Market, is the biggest in Europe and has for many years been the second largest market globally, this position is threatened by ARR as works of art are moved to markets such as Switzerland and the US where the Resale Right is not in existence.

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Deborah Rhodes on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Galerie Pierre on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Zoe Lehane on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Megan Lehane on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Ellie Lehane on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Kitty Lehane on Jan 24, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Steve Mansfield on Jan 25, 2012

    Comments: I ask the Government to seriously consider its position on extension of the Artists' Resale Right in the UK. It is clear that this will adversely affect the livelihood of a significant sumer of small enterprises and, in turn, damage UK competitiveness. This proposal should be vigorously opposed.

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 26 › »