Deciding to "protect the rights" of artists and their heirs, the government imposed art-рынок another casinoroom — 5% on the right route. And instead of useful work has started walking...

Part I. Cultural place

Few days ago I had a chance to visit the cultural site of the capital, namely the Ministry of culture. The occasion was not the most pleasant: we (group of Directors of museums, galleries and auction houses) acted as a kind of walkers to Lenin, who, desperate to find the truth in the law, came to Lenin to the Ministry of culture, to see what we do, and understand how to live with a new "casinoroom" 5% on the right route.

Naive.

we Walked to the conditional "Lenin" and have come to the conventional "main entrance".

here are some impersonal quotations, which you'll be able to guess who is who:

— You write that the legislation inhibits the functioning of the legal market. It does not suit us. Do we have gaps in the legislation? We have that clearly erroneous rules in the laws? We want to understand. This is our profile. To understand how the two markets can not agree with each other... What do you want from us?

— ... Our only request to create a working group, which...

— Instruction can not give...

— We are ready to discuss anything, but behind our backs already prosecutors are checking. We want to work, earn money and pay taxes, but not to run prosecutors, statements and explanations...

— We certainly will use all legal means, including the Prosecutor's office, it is our right...

— You do not understand the format, I deprive you of speech... (deprived of the words of our lawyer when he wanted to do what-то comment in the discussion)

— You have to prove such-то rule of law is not only negative for your wallet... When rates rise, it's not all like that, but it's the economy... And that this provision inhibits the development of culture of the Russian Federation, then it is up to us. If it hinders your prosperity, it is not to us. Not to us. Well, not to us. You say: our company was earning ten million and eight —, it's not me...

— But if the very existence of the company is at issue in connection with the new law?

— Does not for me — not to us. Well, no, it is the market. Couldn't. If you don't have talented people, not enough capital...

— And if all companies leave?

— All gone.. And there is no reason to talk about it. Here you are quite well dressed and probably had lunch unlike me. So there is no reason to think that everyone will die... the Weak leave, the strong come. This market is the risks of the market...

— You want to talk with the government. But. We have opportunities to talk about your life there, and no desire, because this is not our profile. I don't want the extra even know how you live... we Have a lot of tasks of the state, and it is not our profile...

Yes, quotes are taken out of the conversation, but they accurately reflect the situation: officials — is an important Lord, who could care less about what lives lives and do business. Officials have important things to do, and the welfare of "subjects" they are not interested. The problem of employment does not exist. Closed some-то company or not, doesn't matter.

Few years ago I was at the international conference of auction houses in China. There, too, officials considered themselves of higher caste and very looked down on people from the business. But. But it gets the jobthey are seen not primarily in the solution of-то abstract state tasks and in the decision of questions of business. They were set the task of development and demanded that business told them that it hinders development, what you need to do to increase, momentum and so on. You need to enter international markets. Listened very carefully, what prevents this and what laws you need to add, modify, or cancel, — only work only bring profit.

And we have that? And we "leave the weak and the strong are coming." Only the strong is why-то be those who have the state authority or state accreditation, with the ability to use the Prosecutor's office.

So-ну...

Part II. The entrance of the "Culture"

do we Reflect on those names or speak on coincidences in our lives? Probably not — so, will flicker sometimes slight surprise, saying that it should be just as matched, and only.

But in vain.

As stated in one of wisdom, every accident — is not an accident, and unconscious pattern.

And here's the proof.

Our second meeting regarding the entered into force of the law on the right route by which we each sale needs to make contributions of 5% in favor of the artist or his heirs (for 70 years after his death), took place a few days after the meeting at the Ministry of culture. At the meeting we passed through the entrance, which sported a huge sign of "Culture". And this, I tell you, cool. That is our second round of talks took place not just in a cultural place, and in the culture, you can even say inside her, no more and no less.

Here, I allow myself to return to the first part, namely the phrase "We are concerned that you in his note, wrote that as a result of this law, the market will go into a gray area".

Yes, we wrote it several times, and even wrote to the Minister of economic development, the same one that the yesterday, driven from the rostrum of the State Duma by sending to prepare the report better. So we wrote to him that:

1. It would be good to return to the first version of the law on the right route, where it was said that 5%-ные deductions occur, if the re-sale occurred within 3-х years after the first and its price was higher by 20 %. This is correct and fair. Why the owner should pay the artist if the painting sells cheaper than the amount that he paid? Perhaps, on the contrary, the artist in this case is that-то to compensate the owner?

2. Why is the cart before the horse, i.e. we indiscriminately with all sales must make payments to an accredited organization, even if you know that a deceased artist has no heirs? International experience is not such, namely him the whole time nodding. The correct sequence is this: first, the organization finds the heirs, enters into a contract with them and after that works, tracking their rights. We were told not for you to tell us how you raise money. According to the law you owe us to pay, and then we will look for heirs as long as necessary.

— And if you do not find the heirs, then what?

— And not your business...

and We wrote about it the Minister of economic development: let's limit the search for the heirs of three years, and if they are not there, then the moneyneed to either return to the seller (which would be in all senses the right), or move to the state.

said Nothing we Minister.

But the problem will not disappear if swept under the carpet. And the response of the market to muddy the situation with the heirs and transfer them money will be the same muddy. The opacity will provoke opacity. And no amount of repression will not help. They will only lead to the fact that white and transparent, the company will cease to exist, and in their place will be semi-criminal structures who do not care about not just on the right route, and do not care about the law.

Is not clear?

Apparently, Yes.

But coming back to the No. 2 entrance "Culture". It began with the citation of we points of the law, and as soon as we reached the item on sale, I immediately asked:

— That we consider selling? Ad prices after the fall of the hammer? But it's not selling, it is only the information about it. Selling occurs after the arrival of the money.

agreed.

— Then the question is: where appear the interest on the right route? The law says: we sent to the management company information about the sale, but they are within 10 days answer us, is there 5% or not.

But this is a deal breaker.

it is Strange that it is not clear, neither to those who wrote the law nor those who are trying to apply it.

you Cannot declare to the buyer that he needs to pay 5% more, after he won the lot in accordance with the rules of the auction. This information must be known in advance. We say: not the buyer should pay 5% and the seller. And this phrase is even more profound misunderstanding of the structure of trade.

supplements are always borne by the buyer — ay, the writers of the laws, didn't you know? Even if technically paid by the seller, he still will lay these payments in the price. And he (the seller) that he-то will need to be expelled, too, must learn not through 10 days after the sale and at the time of delivery of the painting to the auction.

What is hard?

And this means that our country must live that a rest of the civilized world: first, a list of artists that have the right sequence, and then the formation of prices and sales. With a full understanding of what these poor percentage will actually be given to the heirs and artists, and will not go for another locks of managers of management companies.

Thank God, heard us.

To the list on the website the case has not yet reached, but at least understand that this problem exists.

the Second important point of the discussion: what will happen to the money, which I did not find the heirs? Finally-то we heard that they will return to us in three years. Well, even so.

the Third important point — contract. We (the international Confederation of antique and art-дилеров and joined her activists like me) are preparing a General contract that will be recommended to the market.

And a fourth major point: in our talks against us do not apply repressive action in the form of the Prosecutor's baton.

Good.

, This, of course, not limited to our nearly three-hour negotiations was a discussion of contributions for publication in the directory. For example, I discussed how to interpret the phrase in the law that the owner has the right to print a catalogue of his paintings, without making any deductions from it. The management companyinterprets this provision so: one owner — a single directory, without deductions. But if in the same directory will be published pictures of the two owners, in this case, you will have to pay the author's heirs.

To a common opinion did not come, but even that began to discuss this issue, — is good.

As the result, I can say the following.

a Law is unjust, and will lead to the decrease of the sales and exhibition activities. And that's bad.

.

But the negotiation process on the issues of its use began. And it's good.

Konstantin Babulin, AI