RE: S1198 Visual Artists Rights Act of 1989 (with the request that the following be made part of the record of the hearing on this bill) Dear Senator Hatch: I am an art dealer, the fourth generation in my family firm. We have never dealt in contemporary art though we have had a private interest in the field. The current bill sponsored by Senator Kennedy is, obviously, extremely well intentioned and everyone in the art world is interested in a better lot for artists. It is my opinion, however, that this bill, as written, would have a deleterious effect on the young artists it seeks to assist. The right of an artist to disclaim authorship of a work of art whether or not he created it is extremely dangerous. Years ago our gallery handled a Picasso which the artist denied having created. His Paris dealer had to intervene to remind him that he had done it. This is not a unique event and art dealers, collectors and museums come across the problem all the time of the artist who does not remember or wish to remember his/her own work. What is even more dangerous is when the right of denying a work of art's authenticity is left to the family or heirs. In France it usually comes down to a question of a fee or commission being the basis of acceptance of a work of art. What the artist leaves to the world should not be his censored version nor that of his/her family. What if the descendants of Michelangelo were not pleased with the controversial restoration of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican? Senator Orrin G. Hatch Page 2. Naturally, no one as two works of art. extremely grateful to langelo. wants to see an art work cut in half and sold Even though today every major museum would be be able to own even a fragment of a Miche It seems that this bill also does not allow an artist to waive his right of copyright or allow the right of assignment. Happily there are collectors who buy art for the love of it with no thought of its future value. This was particularly true in the past before the monetarization of art. Today, however, with all the hype too many individuals are not art collectors but, they believe, art investors. As much as I deplore this personally, it does make for a larger market with far wider interest. If the press did not announce daily the record breaking sales at the auction houses, I doubt that this bill would ever have been proposed. I do not believe that the individual or corporation that commissions a work of art for a building will do so if it does not have total control. The art investor will find it a total lack of incentive if he/she cannot do what he/she wishes with their building for which they were thinking of acquiring a mural or sculpture. As we know most contemporary art never rises in value and the young artist needs every possible break and advantage. My specialty is French 18th century and the greatest collectors of that period not only collected old masters but were the patrons of the contemporary artists of their time. The patron buys and commissions works of art from the artist giving him/her both the financial and moral support that allows the artist to continue the creative process. It does seem to me that this bill might have one effect that had not been originally thought of. As prices have mounted in the modern field we have seen collectors move to the old masters which also rise in value but at a less eccentric pace. With this bill making the acquisition of modern art more complicated we will probably see more collectors in our old masters field! Though I realize that this bill has been introduced with all the best intentions I certainly hope it will be seriously reconsidered before being introduced to the full Senate. Thanking you for giving me your kind attention in this matter. Sincerely yours, Gerald G. Stiebel President Senator DECONCINI. Thank you, Senator Hatch. Our first witness this morning was going to be Congressman Edward Markey. He cannot be here because of conflicting schedules, but his statement will appear in the record as if he presented it. [The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] Honorable Edward J. Markey Statement before the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for providing me the opportunity to testify here today. I have joined with my colleague, the Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, in introducing legislation which is similar to that introduced by Senator's Kennedy and Kasten. That legislation seeks to provide needed protection for visual artists. S. 1198, like the House bill, would provide American artists with the copyright protection they deserve. Artists in this country play a very important role in capturing the essence of our culture and recording it for future generations. It is often through art that we are able to see truths, both beautiful and ugly. It is paramount to the integrity of our culture that we preserve the integrity of our artworks as expressions of the creativity of the artist. John Ruskin, a famous historian and philosopher once said, "All great art is the work of the whole living creature, body and soul, and chiefly of the soul." It's important to realize the vulnerability of an artist who has just completed a work. I'll tell you one Boston artist's story. Unlike and author with a good concept, she has not received an advance from a potential patron to pay for easels, paint, and studio space during the production of the work. And, like most artists in this country, she has to hold down another job to support herself. Imagine her horror when she sees her own abstract oil painting reproduced on an album cover as she walks by a downtown record store! Under a Massachusetts arts protection law, she has the power to bring a suit, but in any state where there is no statute protecting visual works from this type of abuse, she would be absolutely out of luck. Currently, there are nine states which offer protections for works of art. If she were an author or a songwriter on the other hand, federal copyright laws would protect her work from being commercially exploited without crediting her as the author. Our legislation would provide visual artists with protection for their works which has been sorely lacking in U.S. copyright law. Unlike the works of literary or performing artists, artworks created by visual artists are treated more as physical objects than as expressions of the artistic creativity of their authors. The bill would recognize the artist's interest in maintaining the integrity of his or her work. The artist would be given the right to claim authorship of his or her work, to disclaim authorship of a distorted or mutilated work, and to bring a civil copyright claim for willful destruction or mutilation of his or her work. I would like to stress that we have gone to extreme lengths to very narrowly define the works of art that will be covered. While we are sensitive to the concerns of those industries that wish to maintain their rights of editing and reproduction, I must take this opportunity to emphasize that this legislation covers only a very select group of artists whose works have been allowed to fall through the existing gaps in our copyright law. I would also like to point out that the law would be applicable only to works created on or after the effective date of the act, or to works created but not published before the effective date. In this way, we avoid diminishing the value of works of art which a person has already purchased. Finally, we have included in both our bills a provision calling for a study on the feasibility of implementing a resale royalty for certain works of art as well as other possible means of promoting opportunities for artists to share in some of the wealth as the value of that work increases. If we are to be serious about promoting art in this country, we need to recognize that with all the money being made in the art world, very little of it gets back to the artist. Once again, it is a question of acknowledging the lasting relationship between the artist and his or her creation. This relationship is not severed the first time the work is sold. For instance, I probably don't have to remind everyone of the atrocity which occurred with Picasso's "Trois Femmes" when two Australian entreprenuers chopped up that great masterpiece into 500 "original Picasso pieces." The absence of legal protection for the artist paved the way for this great work to be brutally mutilated and then allowed Picasso's name to be exploited for the financial gain of the two profiteers. I believe that the Visual Artists' Rights Act would encourage and promote the arts in our society. American culture thrives on the artistic expression of talented individuals, and American artists deserve no less than the protections offered in this legislation. The I want to commend you for addressing this issue today. House plans to hold a similar hearing later this summer, and we hope the legislation will move quickly. Thank you. 28-054-90 - 2 |