Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-02-Speech-1-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010702.4.1-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, having started in April 1997, we have now reached the third reading of the Resale Rights Directive. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the conciliation committee and Mr Zimmerling for their efforts. But unfortunately, I shall have to adhere to my old point of view. The vast majority of my group are still not happy with the proposal. We are concerned here with the difference between the English term ‘copyright’ and the Dutch word ‘auteursrecht’, for what is at issue here is the sale of a work of art.
Should an artist’s heir be able to exercise his or her rights seventy years after the event? I do not think so. A sale implies that all rights and duties are waived, and that is what the financial compensation is for.
The suggestion to increase the minimum price to EUR 3 000 is an improvement. Anything lower would seriously hamper budding artists.
This brings me to my next point of criticism. Our main objection to this proposal is that it is diametrically opposed to the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission has been unable to demonstrate that discrepancies in legislation in the Member States will, in the long run, have a direct, negative impact on the internal market. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the European modern and contemporary art market, which is of particular significance for London, will be moved to Switzerland. This was, in fact, already evident a few weeks ago at the Basel Art Fair. The art market could, in fact, move outside Europe altogether, where this right does not exist. Surely that cannot be the aim of the exercise. It appears from the proposal that that is a problem. Provision is made for all kinds of unnecessary exceptions. Harmonisation has therefore gone out of the window. Is it not a contradiction in terms that, whilst attempts are being made to harmonise resale rights worldwide, the opportunity is being created for the Member States to abandon the minimum price at will via all kinds of loopholes?
Then there is implementation. In addition to the red tape which is involved in keeping track of the different sales and purchases of a work of art, exceptions complicate the matter even further. Artists do not welcome this either. If the sale takes place between private persons, resale rights do not apply. Would you not agree with me that the trade in art between private persons will experience a dramatic upsurge? That is not the only example I could quote.
Finally, the directive does not offer all artists the same treatment, except in the case of sales via galleries and auction houses. The directive is unclear and is not fraud-proof. It is also superfluous, for there
no distortion within the internal market.
My group does not welcome legislation of this kind. The citizen experiences this, in fact, as unnecessary interference from Brussels. My group has voted against it twice. It deems the changes and improvements in respect of the proposal to be insufficient and will therefore be voting against it for the third time."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples