Should Artists or Owners be Compensated Decades After They Sell Artwork? 3 3

[Dr. Balls]

Variations on this topic seemingly keep coming up in art discussions: a form of compensation to artists/owners long after the piece was original sold. You can get the general gist in the article.

The point being that the family selling the Picasso sold the painting at what might be construed as FMV at the time (the article doesn't say - Picasso was certainly famous in 1938 but I haven't a clue what his work went for at that time). Picasso's work wasn't worth $100-$200M in 1938, so if the family were liquidating assets to GTFO of Germany, it seems realistic they would sell this, especially since Picasso was famous enough to allow them quick resale value on an original.

I was also reading a discussion on the FB Comic Art Collectors page where someone was floating the idea that artist's who sold their OA in the 80's should be given a percentage now upon a new sale, citing that Europeans do this. I don't know how far the conversation went, as I checked out when the conversation devolved into USA BAD WORLD GOOD.

The topic of this discussion is: do you feel that artists or owners should be compensated decades after they sell something because the market has catapulted their work into the financial stratosphere?

edit: removed the word "reparations" since it's not the right choice of defining the circumstances of compensation. Apologies to those who took issue with that. I have also boldfaced the original question for clarity.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[thehumantorch]

No, you sold it and now it belongs to someone else.

[Fischb1]

I fail to see the comparison between a German art dealer taking advantage of fleeing Jews, and Europeans selling their art in the 80's. Can you clarify for me?

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/29/2023 at 10:46 AM, Fischb1 said:

I fail to see the comparison between a German art dealer taking advantage of fleeing Jews, and Europeans selling their art in the 80's. Can you clarify for me?

So, from the article, the heirs allege that Thannhauser was "profiting" from the misfortune of German Jews. The Guggenheim also allege Karl Adler's sale of the painting to Justin Thannhauser was a fair transaction between parties with a longstanding and continuing relationship. So, hard to say where that falls - but in the spirit of discussion, let's leave out any sort of establishment that anyone is being taken advantage of, since we have no evidence of that in the article other than one party saying it was, and the other saying it wasn't.

Europeans weren't selling their art in the 80s, I had stated that there was a discussion regarding artists who sold their art in the 80's (like Dave Cockrum, for instance) should be entitled to a percentage of the sale price now once prices had reached astronomical values - and that Europeans currently do this on their purchases/sales. I assume that the seller peels off a percent or two and sends the original artist a check? How is it tracked? Is there accounting for this? I have no idea, other than Europeans in the discussion were adamant that this is how it's done.

The comparison between the two is that artwork is sold, and decades later when it becomes valuable - an original owner, or a secondary owner (or advocates of those) are looking for recompense because they sold the artwork under circumstances beyond their control.

The topic isn't about what those circumstances are - Dave Cockrum selling his originals to make a living is far less of an emergency than a Jewish family trying to flee Nazism - the topic is whether if people feel that there should be compensation made to previous owners 50-80 years prior.

 

[Brian Peck]

On 1/29/2023 at 9:46 AM, Fischb1 said:

I fail to see the comparison between a German art dealer taking advantage of fleeing Jews, and Europeans selling their art in the 80's. Can you clarify for me?

The family sold it to a jewish dealer outside of Germany. This is different from the law requiring art to be returned that was stolen by the Nazis or forced to sell to them. The family needed money to get out of Germany and had to choose a piece to sell they keept the rest of hwat they owned. Its like someone having to sell an OA piece for personal or family needs, medical procedure, house repairs or needing money to move.

[Fischb1]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:40 PM, Dr. Balls said:

So, from the article, the heirs allege that Thannhauser was "profiting" from the misfortune of German Jews. The Guggenheim also allege Karl Adler's sale of the painting to Justin Thannhauser was a fair transaction between parties with a longstanding and continuing relationship. So, hard to say where that falls - but in the spirit of discussion, let's leave out any sort of establishment that anyone is being taken advantage of, since we have no evidence of that in the article other than one party saying it was, and the other saying it wasn't.

Europeans weren't selling their art in the 80s, I had stated that there was a discussion regarding artists who sold their art in the 80's (like Dave Cockrum, for instance) should be entitled to a percentage of the sale price now once prices had reached astronomical values - and that Europeans currently do this on their purchases/sales. I assume that the seller peels off a percent or two and sends the original artist a check? How is it tracked? Is there accounting for this? I have no idea, other than Europeans in the discussion were adamant that this is how it's done.

The comparison between the two is that artwork is sold, and decades later when it becomes valuable - an original owner, or a secondary owner (or advocates of those) are looking for recompense because they sold the artwork under circumstances beyond their control.

The topic isn't about what those circumstances are - Dave Cockrum selling his originals to make a living is far less of an emergency than a Jewish family trying to flee Nazism - the topic is whether if people feel that there should be compensation made to previous owners 50-80 years prior.

 

But one claim is that a family had to sell their art under duress of extermination from an illegal war(whether that's true is for the courts to decide). The other is an artist who sold his art to make a living and pay the bills. I still fail to see the connection at all. 

[Fischb1]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:47 PM, Brian Peck said:

The family sold it to a jewish dealer outside of Germany. This is different from the law requiring art to be returned that was stolen by the Nazis or forced to sell to them. The family needed money to get out of Germany and had to choose a piece to sell they keept the rest of hwat they owned. Its like someone having to sell an OA piece for personal or family needs, medical procedure, house repairs or needing money to move.

The fact that you correlate it to someone selling an OA piece for family needs is sickening to me, Brian. I would expect better from you. 

If the case is true, the family had to sell their possessions in order to purchase super trumped up Visas in order to escape the Nazis. The callousness with which you compare that to selling oa today is disgusting. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/29/2023 at 12:35 PM, Fischb1 said:

But one claim is that a family had to sell their art under duress of extermination from an illegal war(whether that's true is for the courts to decide). The other is an artist who sold his art to make a living and pay the bills. I still fail to see the connection at all. 

I think you are reading too much into the individual reasonings to why people sell their work in my example. I'm not trying to frame the *why* the artwork is sold (I am actually distinctly trying to avoid that), I'm trying to determine if other people feel that compensation should be paid to previous owners/creators or their estate representatives - leaving aside any moral reasoning to do so. This is a general question that was inspired by a front page article I read today.

Is it a lopsided correlation in value? Probably. We're talking about a $100-$200M painting versus a $20,000 comic book page. Am I trying to say the sale of one is similar to the sale of another? No. The value and the circumstances around it are not what I am trying to compare - I'm using these two situations as a comparison in the terms of people looking to be paid for the increase of value over time.

I won't speak for Brian, but for myself - the correlation I am trying to connect is should owners/creators be compensated long after a piece of artwork has seen a massive increase in value. I would imagine Brian is also commenting to that - leaving aside the justification of the point to why someone sold the piece of artwork in the first place.

For me, the discussion isn't about the circumstances around the sale. That is not the discussion I am looking for here, as it can obviously get into a moral/ethical discussion - again, I'm not - and I don't think Brian is - trying to defend the reasoning why it was sold. There are many particulars in the Guggenheim article I don't know - which is also why I'm not really focusing on that.

I am just trying to ask the question of should previous owners/secondary owners (or their representatives) be compensated for the increase in value - unique circumstances notwithstanding.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[Fischb1]

On 1/29/2023 at 3:09 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I think you are reading too much into the individual reasonings to why people sell their work in my example. I'm not trying to frame the *why* the artwork is sold (I am actually distinctly trying to avoid that), I'm trying to determine if other people feel that compensation should be paid to previous owners/creators or their estate representatives - leaving aside any moral reasoning to do so. This is a general question that was inspired by a front page article I read today.

Is it a lopsided correlation in value? Probably. We're talking about a $100-$200M painting versus a $20,000 comic book page. Am I trying to say the sale of one is similar to the sale of another? No. The value and the circumstances around it are not what I am trying to compare - I'm using these two situations as a comparison in the terms of people looking to be paid for the increase of value over time.

I won't speak for Brian, but for myself - the correlation I am trying to connect is should owners/creators be compensated long after a piece of artwork has seen a massive increase in value. I would imagine Brian is also commenting to that - leaving aside the justification of the point to why someone sold the piece of artwork in the first place.

For me, the discussion isn't about the circumstances around the sale. That is not the discussion I am looking for here, as it can obviously get into a moral/ethical discussion - again, I'm not - and I don't think Brian is - trying to defend the reasoning why it was sold. There are many particulars in the Guggenheim article I don't know - which is also why I'm not really focusing on that.

I am just trying to ask the question of should previous owners/secondary owners (or their representatives) be compensated for the increase in value - unique circumstances notwithstanding.

You say you will not try to speak for Brian and then you try to speak for Brian twice. Just saying. 

As for the rest of your argument, I still strongly disagree that this comparison makes any sense in any way. You can't look at the example of the Holocaust and say "Ooh, without getting into why they sold then, it leads to an interesting discussion of should we get today's value on art that was sold long ago." It just doesn't work with the Holocaust. In fact, there are already many settled cases where museums or owners did have to give back the art. It's not a regular circumstance. In this case do they have a legit claim? I have no idea. But if they do, it's because their choice was to sell the art and buy a visa to get out, or to have their kids thrown in the gas chamber. So please stop trying to draw connections between this and any other selling of art and trying to claim future value. 

[Hockeyflow33]

If someone sells a piece of property, it's been sold, trying to attach stipulations later on is wrong. 

These people who keep claiming for older artists to make money off of new sales have nothing invested in the transaction and often times don't seem to be big collectors. They're also free to donate to artists, join their patreons or purchase commissions from them. I also don't see why the descendants of artist X should be entitled to anything. 

[Fischb1]

On 1/29/2023 at 4:18 PM, Hockeyflow33 said:

If someone sells a piece of property, it's been sold, trying to attach stipulations later on is wrong. 

These people who keep claiming for older artists to make money off of new sales have nothing invested in the transaction and often times don't seem to be big collectors. They're also free to donate to artists, join their patreons or purchase commissions from them. I also don't see why the descendants of artist X should be entitled to anything. 

Agreed for the most part. But it's different if art is stolen instead of just sold. If someone steals a piece from you should you able to reclaim it when it pops back up? After 2 weeks? 2 years? 20 or even 50 years? And what happens if it doesn't pop back up until after you're dead? Should your descendants be able to claim it for your estate? And what happens if something is sold with a gun to your head (or a gas chamber to your back)? Is that considered stolen? These are all questions for the courts to decide. Tough questions that people schooled in this field of law have to figure out. That's very different though than comparing selling because of the Nazis to selling because of house repairs. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:29 PM, Fischb1 said:

You say you will not try to speak for Brian and then you try to speak for Brian twice. Just saying. 

As for the rest of your argument, I still strongly disagree that this comparison makes any sense in any way. You can't look at the example of the Holocaust and say "Ooh, without getting into why they sold then, it leads to an interesting discussion of should we get today's value on art that was sold long ago." It just doesn't work with the Holocaust. In fact, there are already many settled cases where museums or owners did have to give back the art. It's not a regular circumstance. In this case do they have a legit claim? I have no idea. But if they do, it's because their choice was to sell the art and buy a visa to get out, or to have their kids thrown in the gas chamber. So please stop trying to draw connections between this and any other selling of art and trying to claim future value. 

Ok, so it'll be like that I guess. I've tried to explain several times - ad nauseam - the simplicity of the question, to which you start pontificating towards someone lending their point of view. I can't recall the last time someone tilted so hard and fast in a discussion, flying off on a perceived tangent of their own creation. 

I have not discounted the circumstances to which those reparations are sought after. I have actually not talked about any of the points you keep bringing up, specifically to avoid offending super sensitive types such as yourself - and you hilariously try to admonish me for avoiding it. I would suspect this is your frustrated way of dealing with the fact I would not feed the troll in discussing the Holocaust topic (of which I have zero desire to do, since - as I have stated numerous times - is not part of the discussion).

You are clearly feeling slighted by something that has not actually been said by anyone other than yourself. I've explained myself several times. You're not getting it, you're not going to get it. You're choosing to freak out about it and lash out at others for a topic you are sensitive about. And with only 17 posts to your name, I'm guessing you're just trolling this site anyways. Thanks for the crazy discussion, I got my typing exercises done for the day.

Edit: Upon blocking this dingbat, I saw there is another person with a similar user name (different number) with zero posts. So yeah: troll.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[Fischb1]

On 1/29/2023 at 4:44 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Ok, so it'll be like that I guess. I've tried to explain several times - ad nauseam - the simplicity of the question, to which you start pontificating towards someone lending their point of view. I can't recall the last time someone tilted so hard and fast in a discussion, flying off on a perceived tangent of their own creation. 

I have not discounted the circumstances to which those reparations are sought after. I have actually not talked about any of the points you keep bringing up, specifically to avoid offending super sensitive types such as yourself - and you hilariously try to admonish me for avoiding it. I would suspect this is your frustrated way of dealing with the fact I would not feed the troll in discussing the Holocaust topic (of which I have zero desire to do, since - as I have stated numerous times - is not part of the discussion).

You are clearly feeling slighted by something that has not actually been said by anyone other than yourself. I've explained myself several times. You're not getting it, you're not going to get it. You're choosing to freak out about it and lash out at others for a topic you are sensitive about. And with only 17 posts to your name, I'm guessing you're just trolling this site anyways. Thanks for the crazy discussion, I got my typing exercises done for the day.

Edit: Upon blocking this dingbat, I saw there is another person with a similar user name (different number) with zero posts. So yeah: troll.

Wow. You tried defending someone for saying that selling because of the holocaust is similar to selling because of house repairs and then you're calling me a super-sensitive type, a dingbat and a troll? And then you blocked me (and some other account that is not mine). Great job failing at reading comprehension and calling names like a child. 

[Bird]

the best way to not talk about nazis is to, you know, not talk about nazis

or maybe frame an argument rather than throwing a bunch of not related things together and then complain when people see the lack of association

[shadroch]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:09 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I think you are reading too much into the individual reasonings to why people sell their work in my example. I'm not trying to frame the *why* the artwork is sold (I am actually distinctly trying to avoid that), I'm trying to determine if other people feel that compensation should be paid to previous owners/creators or their estate representatives - leaving aside any moral reasoning to do so. This is a general question that was inspired by a front page article I read today.

Is it a lopsided correlation in value? Probably. We're talking about a $100-$200M painting versus a $20,000 comic book page. Am I trying to say the sale of one is similar to the sale of another? No. The value and the circumstances around it are not what I am trying to compare - I'm using these two situations as a comparison in the terms of people looking to be paid for the increase of value over time.

I won't speak for Brian, but for myself - the correlation I am trying to connect is should owners/creators be compensated long after a piece of artwork has seen a massive increase in value. I would imagine Brian is also commenting to that - leaving aside the justification of the point to why someone sold the piece of artwork in the first place.

For me, the discussion isn't about the circumstances around the sale. That is not the discussion I am looking for here, as it can obviously get into a moral/ethical discussion - again, I'm not - and I don't think Brian is - trying to defend the reasoning why it was sold. There are many particulars in the Guggenheim article I don't know - which is also why I'm not really focusing on that.

I am just trying to ask the question of should previous owners/secondary owners (or their representatives) be compensated for the increase in value - unique circumstances notwithstanding.

Why limit it to art? Why shouldn't I be entitled to a piece of the next dozen sales of the Avengers 1 I sold for $150 now that it is worth $30,000?

[cloud cloddie]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:44 PM, Dr. Balls said:

 

Edit: Upon blocking this dingbat, I saw there is another person with a similar user name (different number) with zero posts. So yeah: troll.

Maybe don’t start a discussion with Holocaust examples then expect everyone to ignore the Holocaust examples. Ffs. And you think Fisch is a troll? 

Can we delete this thread already?

[Jimmy Linguini]

Didn't they pass some kind of law in Europe where the original artists or artists family gets a percentage of sale from any of there works going for sale?

Isn't that where the Europe argument comes from?

https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/guides/information-guides/artist-s-resale-right/

Edited January 29, 2023 by Jimmy Linguini

[skypinkblu]

On 1/29/2023 at 4:25 PM, Fischb1 said:

Agreed for the most part. But it's different if art is stolen instead of just sold. If someone steals a piece from you should you able to reclaim it when it pops back up? After 2 weeks? 2 years? 20 or even 50 years? And what happens if it doesn't pop back up until after you're dead? Should your descendants be able to claim it for your estate? And what happens if something is sold with a gun to your head (or a gas chamber to your back)? Is that considered stolen? These are all questions for the courts to decide. Tough questions that people schooled in this field of law have to figure out. That's very different though than comparing selling because of the Nazis to selling because of house repairs. 

I have mixed feelings about this. My first thought was that thank G-d, someone actually BOUGHT it from them, so they could get out, because so many people just had everything stolen.

Did the person buying it take a risk?

My 2nd thought was that the Holocaust was not the first massacre, my family fled during the Pogroms...they lost everything, or so I was told...how far and how many times is it logical to go back? 

I'm sorry for the family, as I am for anyone who was involved in the horrors... but I also wonder if the family would have survived at all, if the dealer did not take a risk?  Does that not make it a tiny bit more acceptable? 

If the Nazis had taken it, absolutely it should go back, but that doesn't seem to be what happened.  The Nazis didn't just go after the Jews, they also went after people who helped them survive.

[KirbyCollector]

It may be useful to add some historical context here. Picasso's paintings from the early aughts and teens were sold for $1,000 or less. The average salary in Germany in 1938, when this painting was sold, was $6,000. If this painting was sold for $1,500 as claimed, that would have represented a substantial amount of money at the time. While I will never argue that forced selling of assets to save your own life is fair, an argument can be made that the price they realized at the time was.

On a side note, Picasso's own dealer in Paris (who was his neighbor and later lifelong friend) was Jewish and forced to flee. He had the foresight to transfer some of his art to the US, however, before the Nazis occupied France.

Edited January 30, 2023 by KirbyCollector

[vodou]

This board isn’t designed for nuanced conversation; it certainly isn’t designed to discuss “Reparations: Yes or No?” and almost nobody here past and present is willingly or able to discuss such matters logically without letting emotion and other logical fallacies enter and most likely dominate the discourse. So maybe that’s enough regarding Nazi Germany and the like? It’s really a poor fit anyway.

Otherwise, regarding the European and California version of “artists rights”, at the basic level it’s a matter of how one defines Property Rights: absolute or relative, and then attempting to leverage the legal system to force your version on to all those that disagree.

I think the same risks in the first paragraph as to population, nuance and logic remain though, so…challenge: prove me wrong.