Discogs article on most valuable Blue Note Vinyl

[Big Beat Steve]

1 minute ago, Brad said:

This is mostly a European concept. I do not know if it has been adopted by the US courts. 

So where DID the court ruling occur that Clifford_Thornton alluded to? 🤨

[bertrand]

I was being facetious of course, but seeing these kind of collectors' prices when the artists were barely making a living is depressing.

That True Blue price would have been a little under $700 in 1960. I doubt Tina made that much from sales of the LP in his lifetime.

[Brad]

10 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

So where DID the court ruling occur that Clifford_Thornton alluded to? 🤨

Unless I missed it, I didn’t see Clifford mention a specific lawsuit. 

[JSngry]

Remember how The Rhythm & Blues Foundation mounted legal actions that resulted in some of the 50s greats getting paid respectable amounts for unpaid back royalties?

But it seems like that would be apples and pears to compare crooked record companies and bad faith contracts to shrewd art buyers/investors, no? Unless, again, there was something in the original terms of sale.

Maybe those guys need a union.

[Big Beat Steve]

4 hours ago, Brad said:

Unless I missed it, I didn’t see Clifford mention a specific lawsuit. 

Not specifically. But - quote: "it's not like artworks in which -- and this is a fairly recent development -- estates or artists can make claims on a percentage of sales via auction houses."

To me this reads like there must have been a stipulation or ruling somewhere that opens up this course of action, isn't it? 

[B. Clugston]

15 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

So where DID the court ruling occur that Clifford_Thornton alluded to? 🤨

Not a court ruling, but law. There are 90 countries that have artist’s resale right legislation guaranteeing artists will earn a share from the resale of their work, including European Union countries, but not the US of A. Canada talks about it a lot, but no law yet.

[Big Beat Steve]

Thanks for the info. Amazing that this aspect did not get mentioned here (at least I cannot recall any single instance) when sales of works of art received media coverage. 

I think I found a link to the European law: 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32001L0084

Not easy to see offhand how this could be made to apply to sound recordings, though. Not least of all because even the pressing runs of jazz LPs make these "mass goods" compared to the works of art covered by the directive. 

[Niko]

I guess it's kind of obvious but there's also a wikipedia entry on this whole topic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite

(the German one about the "Folgerecht" may actually be even clearer). It's all limited to visual art... In the case of True Blue one might ask how big Reid Miles' contribution to the value of the whole thing is and whether he might have a small entitlement  

[Big Beat Steve]

2 hours ago, Niko said:

(the German one about the "Folgerecht" may actually be even clearer).   

Indeed it is! 

Beyond all legal terms and convolutedness, the below link may also help in clarifying the EU Directive in a more down-to-earth way:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al26049

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Big Beat Steve

[Kevin Bresnahan]

1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Indeed it is! 

Beyond all legal terms and convolutedness, the below link may also help in clarifying the EU Directive in a more down-to-earth way:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al26049

I still think this is really messed up.

I see that glasswares and ceramics are on the list of "artworks" that fall under this. So when someone drops this glassware/ceramic and it smashes to bits, is the owner now liable for lost resale value? If a buyer of artworks has a house fire and the works of art are destroyed, will his insurance have to send money to the artists to compensate them for lost resale revenue? If an art buyer purposefully destroys art, can they be sued for loss of income? The list of potential problems goes on & on.

And why limit "art" to these things alone? That is the craziest thing here.

I see the legal spin revolves around copies made in limited copies. There are a lot of cars that fall into that category. I imagine that someone that owns a super rare Ferrari or Lambo would be a bit upset if they had to pay an extra fee when buying that rare car on the secondary market.