IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jculte/v22y1998i4p209-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Economic Analysis of the Droit de Suite

Author

Listed:
  • John Solow

Abstract

The droit de suite, or resale royalty right, entitles an artist to a percentage of either the price received when her works are resold by their owners. This paper analyzes the effect of this law on the artist's production when early and late works are either substitutes or complements. By giving the artist an interest in the resale price of early works, the royalty provides a credible incentive to maintain value when later production decisions are made. Since the initial sales price capitalizes the stream of future values, the benefit of higher resale prices accrues to the artist. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Suggested Citation

  • John Solow, 1998. "An Economic Analysis of the Droit de Suite," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 22(4), pages 209-226, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:22:y:1998:i:4:p:209-226
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1007505016512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1007505016512
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1007505016512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karp, Larry S. & Perloff, Jeffery M., 1993. "Legal requirements that artists receive resale royalties," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 163-177, June.
    2. Baumol, William J, 1986. "Unnatural Value: Or Art Investment as Floating Crap Game," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 10-14, May.
    3. Kahn, Charles M, 1986. "The Durable Goods Monopolist and Consistency with Increasing Costs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 275-294, March.
    4. repec:bla:econom:v:56:y:1989:i:224:p:523-27 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Filer, Randall K, 1986. "The "Starving Artist"-Myth or Reality? Earnings of Artists in the United States," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(1), pages 56-75, February.
    6. Nancy L. Stokey, 1981. "Rational Expectations and Durable Goods Pricing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(1), pages 112-128, Spring.
    7. Coase, Ronald H, 1972. "Durability and Monopoly," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 143-149, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Rushton, 2001. "The Law and Economics of Artists' Inalienable Rights," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 25(4), pages 243-257, November.
    2. Sir Alan Peacock, 2000. "Public financing of the arts in England," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(2), pages 171-205, June.
    3. Victor Ginsburgh, 2011. "Resale Rights," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Second Edition, chapter 55, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Michael Rushton, 2011. "Artists’ Rights," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Second Edition, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Richard Watt (ed.), 2014. "Handbook on the Economics of Copyright," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14240.
    6. Chanont Banternghansa & Kathryn Graddy, 2011. "The impact of the Droit de Suite in the UK: an empirical analysis," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 35(2), pages 81-100, May.
    7. Bronwyn Coate & Tim R.L. Fry, 2012. "Better off Dead? Prices Realised for Australian Paintings Sold at Auction," ACEI Working Paper Series AWP-02-2012, Association for Cultural Economics International, revised Feb 2012.
    8. Henry Hansmann, "undated". "Royalties for Artists Versus Royalties for Authors and Composers," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1023, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    9. Richard Watt, 2014. "Copyright in visual art markets: some economic theory concerning resale royalties and other options," Chapters, in: Richard Watt (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Copyright, chapter 18, pages 328-342, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Ruth Towse, 2006. "Copyright And Artists: A View From Cultural Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 567-585, September.
    11. Kim Oosterlinck & Anne-Sophie Radermecker, 2021. "Regulation or Reputation? Evidence from the Art Market," Working Papers CEB 21-006, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. Henry Hansmann & Marina Santilli, 2001. "Royalties for Artists versus Royalties for Authors and Composers," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 25(4), pages 259-281, November.
    13. Francesco Angelini & Massimiliano Castellani & Pierpaolo Pattitoni, 2023. "You can’t export that! Export ban for modern and contemporary Italian art," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 533-557, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jun-ichi Itaya & Heinrich Ursprung, 2008. "Price and Death," CESifo Working Paper Series 2213, CESifo.
    2. John Boyce & Jeffrey Robert Church & Lucia Vojtassak, "undated". "Capacity Constraints in Durable Goods Monopoly: Coase and Hotelling," Working Papers 2012-07, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 08 Aug 2012.
    3. Edward Kutsoati & Jan Zabojnik, 2001. "Durable Goods Monopoly, Learning-by-doing and "Sleeping Patents"," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0105, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    4. Tian Xia & Richard Sexton, 2010. "Brand or Variety Choices and Periodic Sales as Substitute Instruments for Monopoly Price Discrimination," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(4), pages 333-349, June.
    5. Michael Waldman, 2004. "Antitrust Perspectives for Durable-Goods Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 1306, CESifo.
    6. Cabral, Luis M. B. & Salant, David J. & Woroch, Glenn A., 1999. "Monopoly pricing with network externalities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 199-214, February.
    7. Coury, Tarek & Petkov, Vladimir P., 2008. "Delegation and commitment in durable goods monopolies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 41-55, May.
    8. Cong, Lin William & Li, Ye & Wang, Neng, 2022. "Token-based platform finance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 972-991.
    9. Kumar, Praveen, 2006. "Intertemporal price-quality discrimination and the Coase conjecture," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(7-8), pages 896-940, November.
    10. Francesco Nava & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2019. "Differentiated Durable Goods Monopoly: A Robust Coase Conjecture," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(5), pages 1930-1968, May.
    11. Buehler, Stefan & Eschenbaum, Nicolas, 2021. "Dynamic Monopoly Pricing With Multiple Varieties: Trading Up," Economics Working Paper Series 2113, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    12. Michael Waldman, 2003. "Durable Goods Theory for Real World Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 131-154, Winter.
    13. Kempe, Wolfram, 1996. "Monopoly," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,4, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    14. Ngo Long, 2015. "Dynamic Games Between Firms and Infinitely Lived Consumers: A Review of the Literature," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 467-492, December.
    15. Susanna Esteban & Matthew Shum, 2007. "Durable-goods oligopoly with secondary markets: the case of automobiles," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 332-354, June.
    16. Laussel, Didier & Van Long, Ngo & Resende, Joana, 2015. "Network effects, aftermarkets and the Coase conjecture: A dynamic Markovian approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 84-96.
    17. Harikesh Nair, 2007. "Intertemporal price discrimination with forward-looking consumers: Application to the US market for console video-games," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 239-292, September.
    18. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel, 2007. "Durable Goods, Innovation and Network Externalities," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-086, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    art and law; durable goods; resale; royalties;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Z10 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - General
    • K39 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:22:y:1998:i:4:p:209-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.