Resale rights for artists: where there's a will ...

The Court of Justice (Third Chamber) has just rendered its ruling in Case C‑518/08, Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí and Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP) v Société des auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques (ADAGP), Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet and Mónica Busquets Bonet [the Kat he hopes he hasn't left anyone out], a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris of 29 October 2008.

Right: try as he might, Dali could never get his whiskers to grow straight ...

In short, the fabled Spanish painter Salvador Dalí died in Spain in January 1989, leaving five heirs at law. By his will he appointed the Spanish State as sole legatee, within the meaning of the French law of succession, of his intellectual property rights. Those rights are administered by the Fundación Gala‑Salvador Dalí, a foundation established under Spanish law, created in 1983 at the initiative and under the control of the painter. In 1997 the Fundación granted VEGAP, a society under Spanish law, an exclusive worldwide mandate to manage collectively and exercise copyright over the works of Salvador Dalí. VEGAP's French counterpart, ADAGP, was responsible for the management of Salvador Dalí’s copyright in France.

Since 1997 ADAGP collected amounts in respect of the exploitation of Salvador Dalí’s works, which were transferred by VEGAP to the Fundación. Sums received in respect of the artist's resale right, payable under Directive 2001/84 on resale rights, were not however transferred. Complying with Article L. 123‑7 of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC), which reserve the benefit of the resale right to the heirs alone, to the exclusion of legatees and successors in title, ADAGP paid the the resale right receipts directly to Salvador Dalí’s heirs.

The Fundación considered that, under Salvador Dalí’s will and Spanish law, the royalties levied on sales at auction of the artist’s works in France should be paid to it and accordingly sued ADAGP in France for payment of those royalties. ADAGP requested that the painter’s heirs be joined so that the judgment to be given would be applicable to them too. Before deciding the case, the Tribunale de grande instance de Paris needed guidance as to whether Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84 must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article L. 123‑7 of the IPC, which reserves the benefit of the resale right to the artist’s heirs at law alone, to the exclusion of testamentary legatees. Accordingly it decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘1. Can [the French Republic], subsequent to Directive [2001/84], retain a resale right allowed only to heirs to the exclusion of legatees or successors in title?

2. Do the transitional provisions of Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive [2001/84] allow [the French Republic] to have a derogation?’

The Court of Justice has ruled today as follows:

"Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84 ... must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as the provision at issue in the main proceedings, which reserves the benefit of the resale right to the artist’s heirs at law alone, to the exclusion of testamentary legatees. That being so, it is for the referring court, for the purposes of applying the national provision transposing Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84, to take due account of all the relevant rules for the resolution of conflicts of laws relating to the transfer on succession of the resale right".

In the light of this reply, the Court observed that it was unnecessary to reply to the second question.

The IPKat notes that matters such as testamentary disposition and inheritance of copyright rarely give rise to problems concerning the exercise of IP monopolies in the single European market and are likely to remain firmly within the basket of issues that will not be harmonised along with the main economic bits of IP law.

Dali's favourite cat here.

Dali with flying cats here.

"Move over, Dali ..." -- but who's next in line for resale royalty entitlements?

Some people have unkindly suggested that the harmonised IP laws of the European Union bear the same relationship to real law as the paintings of Salvador Dalí occupy with regard to reality.

Right: Dalí was great at doing the whiskers, but he never could get cats' heads right ...

Be that as it may, Advocate General Sharpston of the Court of Justice of the European Union gave her Opinion today in Case C-518/08 Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos v Société des Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María Del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet, this being a reference for a preliminary ruling lodged in November of last year by the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, France.

In 1983 Salvador Dalí set up a Foundation ‘to promote, foster, disseminate, celebrate, protect and defend in Spain and in any other State the artistic, cultural and intellectual oeuvre of the painter, his property and rights of whatever nature; his life experience, his thoughts, his projects and ideas and artistic, intellectual and cultural works; his memory and the universal recognition of the genius of his contribution to the Fine Arts, to culture and to contemporary thought’. He died a widower in 1989, leaving no children or descendants but, in his will, making the Spanish State ‘universal and unconditional heir to all his property, rights and artistic creations, fervently calling upon it to preserve, disseminate and protect his works of art’. The State accepted that legacy, giving the task of administering and exploiting the rights concerned to the Ministry of Culture, which passed it on to the Foundation.

In 1997 the Foundation gave the Spanish collecting society Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP) the exclusive mandate to exercise its rights and collect dues in respect of Dalí’s works anywhere in the world. VEGAP, which has a reciprocal representation contract with its French sister society, Auteurs dans les Arts Graphiques et Plastiques (ADAGP), asked ADAGP to manage the rights over Dalí’s works in France, with effect from 17 October 1997. Since then, ADAGP has collected and paid to VEGAP, on behalf of the Foundation, all amounts due in respect of exploitation of the artist’s works in France – with the exception of resale rights, which it, at least initially, collected on behalf of, and paid to, Dalí’s collateral heirs.

In December 2005 the Foundation and VEGAP brought proceedings against ADAGP before the Tribunal de grande instance in Paris, arguing that, under both French and Spanish choice of law rules, succession to Dalí’s movable estate is governed by Spanish law because, on his death, he was a Spanish national domiciled in Spain. The Foundation is therefore the sole beneficiary of all rights over Dalí’s works, in particular the resale right in respect of public sales.

ADAGP had not distributed any such royalties collected since the action was brought, but was prepared to pay them to whichever party or parties the French courts ruled to be properly entitled. Royalties already paid to the six collateral heirs whom it considered entitled in accordance with French law, it submitted, must be recovered if appropriate from those heirs. It therefore joined those heirs to the proceedings as third-party defendants, although none has entered an appearance.

The Tribunal de grande instance noted that France has maintained a resale right for the benefit of heirs at law alone, whereas the resale royalty right Directive specifies that it is to be payable to ‘those entitled under’ the deceased artist. Wondering whether that was permitted by the Directive, it referred the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

1. Can France, subsequent to [Directive 2001/84 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art], retain a resale right allowed only to the heirs to the exclusion of legatees or successors in title?

2. Do the transitional provisions of Article 8(2) and (3) of [Directive 2001/84/EC] of 27 September 2001 allow France to have a derogation?

Today the Advocate General advised the court to rule as follows:

"Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art does not preclude a national rule under which, after the author’s death, entitlement to the resale right passes only to heirs at law, to the exclusion of legatees or successors in title".

Regarding the first question, the Advocate General concluded that the Directive does not define ‘those entitled under’ the artist after his or her death, but leaves that definition to national law and, by implication, to national succession law. Since differences between national legal systems which cannot be expected to affect the functioning of the internal market may be left intact, there is no uniform category of ‘those entitled’: Member States can therefore adopt or maintain any definition which cannot be expected to have such an effect. If this analysis is correct, the second question doesn't need an answer. In any event, (i) the derogations in Article 8 are expressly available to Member States which did not apply the resale right on 13 October 2001 and France, which did apply the resale right on that date, cannot benefit from them, and (ii) those derogations only allow Member States not to apply the resale right for the benefit of those entitled under the artist; they do not concern the question of application to only a restricted group of beneficiaries.

The IPKat says, this looks like the right answer to me. Merpel says, apparently trivial references like this can actually be useful in clearing away any minor uncertainties that gnaw at the mind of potential claimants -- but it would put the matter beyond doubt if every EU Directive that grants rights either states precisely who is entitled or says that it's up to each Member State to decide for itself.

More on Salvador Dalí here
The Shameful Life of Salvador Dalí here

Salvador Dalí jigsaw puzzles here

Dead artists, families, loved ones ... and the Prime Minister

The facility for petitioning the British Prime Minister via his 10 Downing Street website has been invoked by Tania Spriggens of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society. The rubric for the petition runs as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure the full implementation of the Artist's Resale Right for artists' families and loved ones as soon as possible and review any decision that seeks to deny artists the rights they deserve. More details

Submitted by Tania Spriggens of Design and Artists Copyright Society – Deadline to sign up by: 02 January 2010".

Signatories as of this morning totalled 1,194.  If you are a British citizen and want to sign the petition, follow this link. The Kat says thanks, Louise O'Callaghan (Hardwicke Building) for the information.

Artist's resale right derogation - the IPKat was wrong

The IPKat's prophetic properties must be on the wane. In November, following at UK IPO consultation, the IPKat reported that 90% of respondents favoured ending the derogation from the resale right covering dead artists. The IPKat said that he 'has no doubt which way the Government will decide this issue'. It therefore came as a surprise to the IPKat to read of this letter, from John Denham, the Secretary of State for Universities, Innovation and Skills, to EU Commissioner, Charlie McCreey, asking for a two year extension of the derogation.

The fragile state of the UK art market, and the fear that sales will be diverted to New York or Geneva if the derogation is lifted is given as the reason. The letter also argues that if the UK art market declines then living artists will also suffer. However, Mr Denham also states that the UK backs the EU's attempts to get WIPO to consider making the resale right 'compulsory throughout the world'.

The IPKat wonders whether, in current economic conditions, the resale right will be the thing which is decisive as to where a sale takes place. Surely at least as important will be the value (or lack thereof) of the respective countries' currencies. Either way, he reckons that if the resale right really is that significant, the EU are going to have a hard job convincing WIPO members to take on the right. Merpel asks, is this the first IP policy to be directly shaped by the credit crunch?

Late responses delay dead artists' right assessment

Today's press release from the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) is bound to annoy at least someone, since it addresses a subject that raises many individual and some collective hackles: the artist's resale right.

Right: one dead British artist who won't be benefiting from letting the derogation lapse - William Hogarth

The press release, "The Artist's Resale Right: The Derogation for Deceased Artists", reads in relevant part as follows (with key bits in bold):

"The UK Intellectual Property Office consultation to assess the likely impact of Artist's Resale Right and the derogation for deceased artists on the UK art market closed on 29 September after a week’s extension to accommodate late responses ["late"? Best unintended pun of the year ...].

The consultation [which, the IPKat notes, remarkably attracted over 400 responses] sought views on whether to maintain the existing derogation, which applies to works by a living artist for a further two years until 1 January 2012, or to allow the derogation to lapse. If the derogation is allowed to lapse, works by deceased artists which are still in copyright will become eligible for resale right. ...

The UK Intellectual Property Office has done some initial analysis and around 90% answered no to the first question in the consultation, which was "Should the UK maintain the derogation for an additional 2 years?"

All of the artists and artists' estates who expressed an opinion on the derogation have said that they thought that it should be allowed to lapse. All bar two of the, often detailed, responses from the art trade were in support of extending the derogation until 2012.

Two UK collecting societies for resale right, supported by some of their overseas counterparts, argued that the derogation should be allowed to lapse. Several UK collecting societies and representatives of other rights made submissions saying that the derogation should be allowed to lapse in order that resale right is brought into line with the other types of copyright.

The UK Intellectual Property Office will now be analysing in detail all of the responses. If the Government decides it is necessary to extend the derogation it has to make a case to the European Commission by the end of this year. ...".

The IPKat, who is beginning to suspect that there may be votes in dead artists' resale rights after all, has no doubt which way the Government will decide this issue.

Consultation document here
Dead artists here
Dead poets here; dead poets' society here

Artists' resale rights - a report, a consultation and a summer party

Today's the day that the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) publishes the report it commissioned from the Intellectual Property Institute, London, into the impact of the controversial resale royalty rights for artists on the UK art market. This right (see earlier IPKat posts here and here) was introduced in 2006, when the UK reluctantly but dutifully implemented a European Directive on that subject.

Right: paintings by cats have been excluded from the Directive, presumably on account of the copyright issues arising from their having nine lives

At the time the right was introduced, there were concerns that it would increase costs for the art industry. Examining in detail the costs and benefits of the right for both the UK art market and its artists, today's report indicates that the right has not had a significant impact on the art trade -- but there may be some difficulties with the way the system is running.

Left: artistic works are protected by copyright "irrespective of artistic merit" -- which presumably applies to resale royalty rights too.

The real Baroness Morgan has announced that the UKIPO is to launch a consultation this summer aimed at ensuring that the UK maintains a system that allows the art market to succeed.

In short, the right currently applies to works created by live artists. From 2010 the right will also apply to works created by artists who have been dead for fewer than 70 years. The consultation will look at the possibility of continuing to exclude deceased artists until 2012. The UKIPO is having a summer party at which it will publish its consultation paper and discuss the findings of the IPI report, as well as reports produced by others in the resale right arena.

If you want to read the report, you can download the PDF version here. The authors are Katy Graddy, Noah Horowitz and Stefan Szymanski. The report runs to 103 pages and it's packed with genuine data -- the first 39 pages seem to be the operative bit, though.

Says the IPKat, it's good to see the Intellectual Property Institute getting involved in projects like this: the IPI has the enthusiasm and the know-how to supervise IP research projects, delivering them on time and within budget. He wishes he'd been involved in this one. But Merpel asks, is this another case of the plain truth being spoiled by the real facts?

Why cats paint here
Why Katz paints here

Spain condemned for non-implementation of resale rights directive

It's only available in French and Spanish, but the European Court of Justice ruling in Case C-32/07 Commission des Communautés européennes v Royaume d’Espagne makes it plain that the Spanish are in breach of their Euro-commitments by failing to implement correctly the provisions of Directive 2001/84 on droit de suite au profit de l’auteur d’une œuvre d’art originale (the resale right directive).

Right: it's magnificent and it's art -- but can you identify the creature on the left?

Since the judgment is so short, the Kat is reproducing it more or less in full here. If any kind person wishes to post an explanation below, he will be forever grateful.

"1 Par sa requête, la Commission des Communautés européennes demande à la Cour de constater que, en ne prenant pas les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à la directive 2001/84/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 27 septembre 2001, relative au droit de suite au profit de l’auteur d’une œuvre d’art originale (JO L 272, p. 32, ci‑après la «directive»), ou, à tout le moins, en ne lui communiquant pas lesdites dispositions, le Royaume d’Espagne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de cette directive.

2 Ainsi qu’il ressort de l’article 1er, paragraphe 1, de la directive, celle-ci a pour objet d’instituer un droit de suite au profit de l’auteur d’une œuvre d’art originale.

3 Aux termes de l’article 12, paragraphe 1, premier alinéa, de la directive, les États membres devaient mettre en vigueur les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à celle-ci avant le 1er janvier 2006 et en informer immédiatement la Commission.

4 N’ayant pas reçu d’informations lui permettant de considérer que les dispositions nécessaires pour assurer la transposition de la directive dans l’ordre juridique espagnol avaient été adoptées dans le délai prescrit, la Commission a engagé la procédure en manquement prévue à l’article 226 CE. Après avoir mis le Royaume d’Espagne en demeure de présenter ses observations, la Commission a, le 4 juillet 2006, émis un avis motivé invitant cet État membre à prendre les mesures nécessaires pour se conformer à cet avis dans un délai de deux mois à compter de la réception de celui-ci.

5 La réponse des autorités espagnoles audit avis motivé ayant fait apparaître que les dispositions nécessaires à la transposition complète de la directive n’avaient pas encore été adoptées, la Commission a décidé d’introduire le présent recours.

6 Dans son mémoire en défense, le Royaume d’Espagne conteste la recevabilité du recours en invoquant un prétendu manque de précision de la requête. Selon cet État membre, la Commission s’est, en fait, bornée à formuler des appréciations générales sur le manquement reproché ne permettant pas au Royaume d’Espagne d’être informé des dispositions précises de la directive nécessitant une transposition en droit interne.

7 À cet égard, il y a lieu d’observer que, ainsi qu’il ressort du dossier, les autorités espagnoles ont reconnu elles-mêmes, dans leur réponse à la lettre de mise en demeure, que certaines dispositions de la directive, précisément identifiées dans cette réponse, n’avaient pas encore été transposées dans l’ordre juridique national. Partant, le Royaume d’Espagne ne saurait utilement prétendre, pour sa défense, qu’il n’avait pas connaissance des articles de la directive nécessitant une transposition dans son ordre juridique.

8 Il convient, par conséquent, de rejeter l’exception d’irrecevabilité soulevée par le Royaume d’Espagne et de déclarer recevable le recours de la Commission.

9 Quant au fond, le Royaume d’Espagne indique que la législation espagnole, notamment l’article 24 du texte codifié de la loi sur la propriété intellectuelle, approuvé par le décret royal législatif 1/1996, du 12 avril 1996, qui régularise, clarifie et harmonise les dispositions en vigueur en la matière (BOE n° 97, du 22 avril 1996, p. 14369), assure une transposition partielle et anticipée de la directive. Toutefois, il ressort du mémoire en défense de cet État membre que l’ensemble des mesures nécessaires à la transposition complète de cette dernière n’ont pas été adoptées dans le délai prescrit.

10 À cet égard, il suffit de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence constante de la Cour, l’existence d’un manquement doit être appréciée en fonction de la situation de l’État membre telle qu’elle se présentait au terme du délai fixé dans l’avis motivé et que les changements intervenus par la suite ne sauraient être pris en compte par la Cour (voir, notamment, arrêts du 14 septembre 2004, Commission/Espagne, C‑168/03, Rec. p. I-8227, point 24; du 14 juillet 2005, Commission/Allemagne, C‑433/03, Rec. p. I‑6985, point 32, et du 28 juin 2007, Commission/Portugal, C‑410/06, non publié au Recueil, point 10).

11 En l’espèce, il est constant que, à l’expiration du délai imparti dans l’avis motivé, toutes les mesures destinées à assurer la transposition de la directive dans l’ordre juridique espagnol n’avaient pas été adoptées.

12 Il s’ensuit qu’il y a lieu de considérer comme fondé le recours introduit par la Commission.

13 Par conséquent, il convient de constater que, en ne prenant pas, dans le délai prescrit, toutes les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à la directive, le Royaume d’Espagne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de cette directive".

Spanish art here
Spanish art at auction here