Where Is My Cut? Justifying Resale Rights.
It strikes many people as unfair when artists whose works generate large profits for galleries or art dealers do not themselves benefit from the rise in value of their art. A policy called the Artist's Resale Right (ARR), whereby the creator of an artwork receives a percentage of any subsequent resa...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Applied Philosophy Vol. 42; no. 5; pp. 1476 - 1496 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Nov2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=189063536&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 189063536 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 02643758 BQ0 jtl: Journal of Applied Philosophy issn: 02643758 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Nov2025 vid: 42 iid: 5 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 189063536 10.1111/japp.70035 ppf: 1476 ppct: 20 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 451KB tig: atl: Where Is My Cut? Justifying Resale Rights. aug: au: Bartsch, Anna affil: Department of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK su: Property rights Exploitation of humans Normativity (Ethics) Intellectual property Art industry Secondhand trade sug: subj: Property rights Exploitation of humans Normativity (Ethics) Intellectual property Art industry Secondhand trade ab: It strikes many people as unfair when artists whose works generate large profits for galleries or art dealers do not themselves benefit from the rise in value of their art. A policy called the Artist's Resale Right (ARR), whereby the creator of an artwork receives a percentage of any subsequent resale transaction, is supposed to address this. I examine whether this policy is well‐grounded normatively. I do so by focusing on two types of arguments justifying the ARR: the argument from property rights and the argument from exploitation. The first claims that an ARR can be motivated by appeal to existing property rights or to their underlying justifications. The second relies on claims about the vulnerability of the creator, the fair distribution of benefits in a transaction, and the nature of the buyer's duties towards the artist. I will argue that neither strategy is successful in convincingly justifying an ARR. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Journal of Applied Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Journal of Applied Philosophy holder: Wiley-Blackwell dt: @attributes: year: 2025 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|