Three months ago came into force the government decision No. 285: sellers of paintings commanded to donate 5 % of resale to an accredited organization UPRAVI in favor of the artists and heirs to copyright. Explain what's wrong with that

• Jean-Франсуа Millais sold his painting "the Angelus" in 1865 for 1,000 francs. But in 1889, 14 years after his death, the owner resold for 553 000 francs. The artist's family, living in poverty, have not received nothing. This injustice was the impetus for the introduction of droit
  Source: Wikipedia.org

In the growing industry conflict with UPRAVIT from professional participants of the art market have regularly heard this idea, they say, to pay the artists we are satisfied, but not happy to pay it as now. the draft resolution on the results of the round table MKAAD-УПРАВИС CHA there is a phrase: "All participants agree with the need for royalties to artists and heirs. But the system of collecting these contributions should be clear, transparent and correct."

When reading, every time this place stumble.

What do you mean "all agree"? Not all of them. It is difficult to imagine a merchant who in his right mind voluntarily agree to additional levies, deductions, payments. I understand that this "consent", rather, forced a diplomatic move to preserve some-то basis for negotiations. Well, the hint that paying directly to the artists definitely nicer than cheeky to pay a third party organization.

If we leave aside the historical traditions and foreign counterparts, the idea of royalty payments today already looks anachronistic. Right follow — droit de suite or artist's resale right — is a mechanism, invented almost a century and a half years ago. And then the goal was noble, in fact, a moral norm. Then, people lived very long. Information traveled slowly. Talented creators just do not live up to well-deserved success. The artist often died or were sick, without waiting for recognition. But if painting after the death began to sell well and grow in value, the widow and children did not get. Many lived in destitution, seeing how others earn on the pictures of their husbands and fathers. Here for their protection and was invented a special mechanism of deductions from the resale in the case of a price increase.

Now such a situation to imagine is extremely difficult. Hence the question: is this a fair mechanism today? To many it seems at least strange. Why the Builder or the architect do not pay royalties after the resale flats? Or the Professor of the University after the graduate moves on to a higher paying position? Or surgeon, if his surviving patient is moved to the service? Yes, the artist's special work, the special role and critical to the society's mission. But this does not remove the question: why to preserve its rights to apply the technology of the nineteenth century?

"What is wrong! — might think. — Think they have an easy life? Let not all, but at least the needy artists and families will be well!"

Then you've misunderstood. I'm all for the fact that the artists were good. So they were selling to was a planned price increase to accumulated convincing statistics of the auction. But this is what I want. And the law — no. In the current economic realities of the judgment, on the contrary, worsens the situation of the most vulnerable and needy.

And here's why.

take a minute for math art-бизнеса. The calculations are a bit "sloppy", but for a General understanding of fit. Imagine that the auction is sold the picture or even a picture of 20 000 rubles (regular price for the mass market, such sales are the majority). In this case, received by the auction buyer's Commission (rounded to 20 %) will amount to 4 000. Royalties auction reality will have to take. So, subtract another 5% from 20 000 from the Commission: minus 1 000. The auction will remain 3 000. Not much. But it will be worse. To administer the sending of information to UPRAVIT, to conduct the correspondence on this a thousand rubles, to reconciliation and to engage in other paperwork, the auction will need to hire an employee. He received at the hands of 30 000 roubles it is necessary to accrue payroll taxes of about 45 000 monthly. That is only to discourage "zero" this additional salary to the auction need to sell per month 15 work 20 000. And that-то earn salaries the rest of the company needs to sell many times more: 40-50 such of paintings and drawings in a month. In today's market it's impossible. So many are not able to sell a single auction. And we are talking about the paintings over 20 000, and there is still an impressive segment in the price range of 10 000-20 000. It becomes completely unprofitable. The icing on the cake of all this questionable economy — fines. UPRAVI in their draft treaties assigns a penalty of 10 000 rubles for failure to provide information on each lot. To take such risks for fines and administration costs, businesses need to sell pictures that are worth at least 150 000-200 000. All the others deal simply unprofitable. The costs of "bureaucracy" for the film 10 000 and 150 000 the same, but the earnings are different. Over time, the auctions just stop taking trades at good pictures of good artists simply because they are not expensive. Will be forced.

Where you will get the paintings cheaper than 150 000? What-то part taken care of "grey market". But it is also the ultimate story: the old buyers for almost everything, and new it is possible to search only through the Internet, through the public market (and this was a good auction). If this channel will close soon, many collectors face the problem of liquidity — will not be able to sell their artists. It would seem that all is good and affordable paintings, interesting authors, but no one will know. Too narrow a circle. Without the Internet, without public sales not to expand. Where-то will go novice collectors, where-то will go to the correct vendors, but they will not meet. No luck.

With the Economics of the trade, I hope, clear. But that's not all. Those who sincerely counts on money and believe the slogans "Down with the snickering art-буржуазию!" and "Give 5% to the artists!", encouraged to answer a few questions:

1. Do you pay royalties if you are a relative of the artist, but you do not have decorated as heir of the copyright? Many of the heirs of this status feature?

2. Do you know of cases over the past ten years-пятнадцать when painting little cost and rarely sold during his lifetime, but dramatically rose in price and became in large quantities to be sold after death? to now as it was in the nineteenth century?

3.Improve the welfare of contemporary artists and the legal heirs of the deceased after 1948, if the auctions will be denied their collectors and will not take any more at the auction of the painting price segment of up to 150 000?

4. The auction sold the painting for 20 000 rubles. Earn 4 000 to the Commission. After this the auction has received notification of the Prosecutor's investigation, the requirement of payment in the amount of 1 000 rubles on the right route and a fine of 10,000 rubles. Will the auction continue to sell paintings by this artist?

5. The artist is well sold in the price range of 80 000 , the price gradually increased. Suddenly the auctions stopped taking it works, because below 150 000 was not profitable from-за legislation. Question: how soon after that the artist will go into the price range of 150 000 ? In this case the law protects his interests?

6. The collector purchased from the artist 10 years ago for 200 000 rubles. Now he is under the pressure of circumstances forced to sell it for 100 000. Losing half of it from the remaining money has to pay another 5 000 in the right route. Do you consider a fair payment?

7. Where will the money collected for artists that are not defined by the heirs of copyright? If there where all think, what's the point of an accredited organization to dig the earth for these heirs?

I Think that the answers to these questions also prompted you to simple and seditious thought.

In our conditions, the application of the law on the five-percent deductions will lead to the fact that the rich will get richer and the poor — to Peter out. Artists that today are worth good money — 300 000, 600 000, 1 000 000 rubles for the work — Yes, they will be even better. They sure don't reduce demand, as everyone wanted them to do, and will. Uncomfortable and even 5% will not be a hindrance for auctions and dealers, as clear an impressive mutual benefit. To work with expensive and successful artists will be thrown all the forces and attention of dealers and auctions. And how precisely they (and their copyright heirs) will receive their 5 % royalties as a clock.

But the rest of the talented artists to break through in this life, on the contrary, will be much more difficult. From-за a high enough cost of works of these authors will be faced with a forced trade discrimination on the part of auction houses and other transparent trading organizations. It will be harder to shape the history of auction sales (which determines prices). Their work will be less willing to purchase the collectors (after all that happen, — will have nowhere fast to resell). Your statutory 5 % they are unlikely to get, since the open auction sale will come to naught, and all the rest of the deal is likely to go into a gray area. There are no royalties, not just anyone to see.

If indeed government wanted justice, I thought about the market development, prosperity and decent careers of creative people, it had to be done by-другому. For a start, to introduce a minimum price of the picture, which makes sense to draw deductions. For example, set a minimum of 150 000 rubles, and up to this point not to charge. Second, to take profits instead of losses. For example, in the case that within three years there is a re sale and the price has increased by more than 20 %. And if you fell — thatno payments. And finally, fairness requires openness: there should be a published list of names of artists and their families, which have signed treaties for the protection of rights. To make it clear who the money is going. Why not have to do so? Each have their own answer to this question. But in fact it turned out that the interests of the artists care too badly if they think about them at all.

Vladimir Bogdanov, AI