(There have been a number of legislative attempts in Washington D.C. to approach the problems of artists' rights in relationship to copyrights of artwork and the ways in which that work is to be taxed. Allison Santos, President of Simply Elegant Weavings Inc. in Portland, has been kind enough to keep the U.O. informed of the work being done. The following is a synopsis of an article she submitted earlier this year.)

"At the end of Tax Year 1987, freelance artists, writers, composers, sculptors, painters, and graphic artists faced a devastating blow to their businesses due to language which was incorporated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, under section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code. Professional consultants as well as artists were stymied by the inclusion of the paragraph which called for the non-deductability of what was termed "certain direct and indirect costs." In general, the law applied to inventory (both real and tangible personal property) which was in the hands of the taxpayer at the year's end. Under the new law the artist could not deduct expenses for work which had not been sold. The provision severely impacted authors, photographers, and artists. The paragraph read, "For purposes of paragraph (1) the term "tangible personal property" shall include a film, sound recording, video tape, book, or similar property."

Artists' groups nationwide joined together in Washington, D.C., by forming the coalition, Artists for Tax Equity, to fight Uniform Capitalization. Artists for Tax Equity, representing some 75 arts organizations, under the stewardship of lobbyist Paul Skrabut, Vice President of Palumbo and Cerrell, Inc., became one of the strongest voices for the arts and was heard by members of Congress throughout the country.

In early 1988, Artists for Tax Equity was created to pass legislation that would restore artists' deductions. Many professional consultants were unconcerned by the new law because they were unaware of what was expected of them and they felt that the law was unenforce

4

able. But the taxpayer would be the person responsible, not the accountant.

Pressure was on both the House and the Senate to repeal the law. It would be unlikely for Uniform Capitalization to be repealed, if it didn't pass in 1988. Introduced in the House by Rep. Tom Downey (D-NY), cosponsored by Les AuCoin and some 60 other representatives was an amendment to exempt artists from the law. It defined artists as being any individual who could reasonably be expected to create by his own efforts, a painting, sculpture, statue, drawing, cartoon, graphic design, or original print edition. This language was included in an omnibus tax bill, H.R. 4333, which passed the house 380/25. In May of 1988, the Internal Revenue Service published a regulation called the "Safe Harbor Method." Under this system taxpayers would aggregate and capitalize all "qualified creative costs" incurred during each taxable year and amortize and deduct 50 percent of those costs in the year they are incurred, 25 percent the following year and the final 25 percent the third year. Moreover, the Safe Harbor Method could be used with respect to a corporation only if a qualified employee-owner owned 95 percent (by value) of its stock and it was ruled that the owner's personal efforts were to be concerned predominantly in the creation of properties.

On October 11, 1988, the Senate voted in favor of legislation to exempt free-lance artists, authors, and photographers from "Uniform Capitalization." containing the following new criteria:

1) The originality and uniqueness of the item created (or to be created) 2) The predominance of aesthetic value over utilitarian value of the item created (or to be created) During the rush to adjourn, the final version of H.R. 4333 passed both Houses of Congress in the early hours of the morning of October 22, 1988. The President signed the bill into law on November 10, 1988.

Artists have scored a major victory in the 100th Congress. While it may not have been the final victory for all artists,

this success shows the political muscle that artists can generate. There are numerous other arts issues still pending on our agenda.

In March of this year a bill entitled the "Copyright Remedy Clarification Act" was introduced which addresses the issue of the rights of states to infringe on an artist's work. Current laws exempt states and any instrumentality of the state from liability in copyright infringement cases. The "Copyright Remedy Clarification Act" will make states and any instrumentality of the state liable to the same extent as any non-governmental entity.

A bill which was first introduced into Congress in 1986, which will secure moral and paternity rights for the artists, was reintroduced June 16, 1989. S.1198. the Visual Artists Rights Act, is sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, (DMA) and co-sponsored by Senator Robert W. Kasten, Jr., (R-WI).

The House version, H.R.2690, is sponsored by Rep. Robert Kastenmeier, (D-WI) Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Adminisstration of Justice, the committee through which the bill must pass. It is co-sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey, (D-MA) who sponsored the bill last session, and Rep. Howard L. Berman, (D-CA).

The first House Subcommittee hearing was scheduled for July 17, in New York, but was cancelled. A hearing could be re-scheduled when Congress reconvenes after Labor Day holiday.■

In a related local incident, the Meier & Frank department store in Eugene's Valley River Center recently disposed of Jan Zach's (former UO professor of Fine Arts) giant stainless steel sculpture "Can Can" which had hung in the store's rotunda for twenty years. In a public relations blunder akin to gross negligence, the store removed the piece without contacting Zach's widow or the UO Dept of Fine Arts. In short, Meier & Frank, who owned the work legally. trashed it without giving the community enough time to find it a new home.