ARR – The reality about the Artist’s Resale Right

The biggest advantage to those who champion
ARR is that so few people really understand it

One of the first issues to be raised in post-Brexit discussions with the art market was the long-running sore of Artist’s Resale Right.

Introduced in two stages (2006: living artists; 2012: artists’ estates for up to 70 years after their death), the combination of charges and red tape made it all but universally unpopular among auctioneers and, especially, dealers.

ARReaselArtists, the collecting agencies who stood to benefit more than anyone and various others saw it as overdue compensation for those whose work goes on to sell for huge sums without them benefiting further.

The message in brief: Why shouldn’t artists share in the benefits their art brings to others?

Now that the UK is heading for the door, will this law – the result of a European Union harmonisation directive – survive?

Difficult to say, but with everything else on the agenda, scrutiny of it is hardly likely to be a Government priority.

Failing the fairness test

As someone who spent many years campaigning against the introduction and then extension of ARR, I have always believed that it is not only detrimental to the art market, but also to artists. I also think that it fails the fairness test completely in the way it is structured. The problem is that so few people understand its scope and impact that, as with many other measures that should never have made it onto the statute book, they can’t see why art market professionals have any reason to object to it.

Let’s try to clarify that with a few facts:

  • ARR has nothing to do with copyright, which is an entirely different right subsisting with the artist for their lifetime and to their heirs for 70 years afterwards.
  • It is charged every time a qualifying work resells in the commercial marketplace.
  • ARR applies to qualifying works three years after the original sale when the price is the equivalent of €1000 or more and immediately if it is €10,000 or more.
  • ARR is not charged as a percentage of profits on an artwork, but as a percentage of the entire price when the art is sold in the commercial marketplace.
  • As long as the artist qualifies for ARR and the price is above the qualifying threshold (€1000 or equivalent), the charge applies, even when the seller makes a loss.
  • ARR cannot be paid directly to the artist but must pass through one of the two collecting agencies that administer it in the UK, The Design & Artists Collecting Society (DACS) or the Artists Collecting Society (ACS), which each charge 15% of the sum collected in fees, except on overseas sales, for which they make no charge. Originally DACS wanted to charge 25%, but this was reduced in line with the ACS prior to ARR coming into effect in 2006.
  • ARR is an inalienable right, which means a qualifying artist cannot opt to waive it, regardless of whether they think it is unfair or risks damaging the market for their work.
  • Those involved in the transaction are jointly and severally liable for paying ARR, although in practice the auction houses pass on the charge to the buyer, while only some dealers pass it onto those who buy from them. This means dealers suffer from ‘double dip’ payments – one on buying and one on selling. So a levy across the deal can be as much as 8% of the entire price.
  • There is no definitive list of qualifying artists.
  • Failure to meet your obligations under ARR rules risks a criminal charge.
  • The collecting agencies hold no liability for their mistakes, even if you are the loser as a result.
  • If a collecting agency accepts an ARR payment for a transaction that may not qualify, or for which the artist or their heirs cannot be traced, they can keep the money for up to six years before returning it. In doing so, they still charge their 15% fee and keep all the interest accrued.
  • ARR is primarily supposed to help poorer artists as they establish their careers. However, the vast bulk of sums collected go to the most successful and richest artists and their estates.
  • 30% of all monies distributed go to artists’ estates.
  • ARR is capped at €12,500 on any single work of art.
  • ARR rates apply as follows: 4% from €1000-50,000; 3% from there up to €200,000; 1% from there up to €350,000; 0.5% from there up to €500,000; and 0.25% above that to the cap. The scale is cumulative, so on artworks selling for more than €500,000, you pay ARR according to the scale of rates up to that point.
  • ARR applies to the hammer price for auction sales.
  • The UK Government went against its own policy by ‘gold-plating’ the threshold at which ARR should apply. The EU directive stipulated that it did not have to apply under €3000, but the Government went further than that by reducing the threshold to €1000. Originally, the Government had actually campaigned in Europe for the threshold to be raised to €5000.
  • Dealers complain as much about the paperwork involved as the fee.
  • Failure to comply with the directive and pay ARR meant that many dealers could not show its impact when the UK Government carried out its impact study into ARR at the end of 2013.
  • By DACS’ own figures, it has charged over £7m in ARR fees over the past ten years. If its overheads (taking into account other revenues it raises) are lower than this, then it may be not-for-profit, but will certainly be banking a healthy surplus.
  • I have never made a penny out of ARR and have no financial or other material advantage in arguing my case.

All of the above is quite a lot to take in. People will argue the fairness of the concept of ARR till the cows come home and still not agree. However, a number of things concern me.

The first is that ARR in the UK has never met the terms of the directive that imposed it on the market. It is not harmonised with other ARR programmes across the EU in terms of thresholds and application. It is not supposed to continue if global harmonisation fails to take place (it has failed and is unlikely ever to take place, as recent events in the US show), yet there appears to be no political will by those who imposed it on the market to meet these terms.

It is not in the interests of the market, which is put at a competitive disadvantage in relation to the other leading global art markets (US, Hong Kong, Switzerland), which have not adopted it.

It acts against the interest of artists trying to establish themselves in the market because dealers are less likely to take a risk in buying collections of their work for resale, giving them a lump sum in the process. Now, most will only sell on commission, allowing fewer artists to rely on this as a source of income.

Most of all, though, I have found that almost no one I talk to about ARR understands it fully and accurately.

Of these, nearly everyone who is not a dealer or auctioneer thinks it is a levy solely on profit. Not one – artists included – thinks that paying it as a percentage of the entire price is fair. No one at all thinks that it is fair that it should be levied even if the transaction makes a loss – not even DACS could come up with an argument for that one when I first asked them about it shortly after its introduction.

A practicable solution that better meets the fairness test

The only argument for these conditions is that it makes it practicable to collect the levy. If you were to charge 4% above €1000 for an artwork where the profit was, say, €100, then ARR would be just €4. From that the collecting agency fee would be €0.60. In this case it would probably cost more to administer and distribute the levy than the sum raised by it.

However, the driving argument by the collecting agencies and the supporters of ARR has always been one of fairness. If fairness trumps all, then make it truly fair. This can be done by raising the threshold to where it should have been in the first place and charging only on profits. The flat rate percentage charged by the collecting agencies allows them to subsidise loss-making distribution activities at the lower end of the scale with the large surpluses made at the top end of the scale, a fitting arrangement for the self-declared not-for-profit organisations.

To my mind, it would also be fairer to poorer, less established artists who might, once more, find a healthy level of patronage among dealers willing to take a risk on them by purchasing collections up front and giving the artists lump sums to work on their next phase. Don’t forget, those same dealers invest considerably in helping boost the artists’ reputations. Successful artists’ reputations are rarely built in isolation, so why would you want to penalise the very people who can make it happen for them.

Do I think anything will change?

Probably not. All I hope is that those who declare ARR a great idea are fully aware of its parameters and potential consequences. I have been looking at them closely for almost 20 years and still can’t see how fairness or common sense applies.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>