IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/csledp/200007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Artists Benefit from Resale Royalties? An Economic Analysis of a New EU Directive

Author

Listed:
  • Kirstein, Roland
  • Schmidtchen, Dieter

Abstract

According to a new European Union directive, artists, whose works are resold, are entitled to a share of the sales price. The principal aim of this initiative is to let the artists participate in the economic success of their work. Our analysis shows that the new directive is most likely to place the artists in a worse economic position. The analysis of the relation between the artist and his dealer as an incentive compatible contract leads to further objections against the new EU directive. However, the paper also illustrates under which conditions a resale royalty is, at least, an incentive compatible contract.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirstein, Roland & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 2000. "Do Artists Benefit from Resale Royalties? An Economic Analysis of a New EU Directive," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2000-07, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:csledp:200007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/23109/1/2000-07_dds4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schmidtchen, Dieter & Koboldt, Christian & Kirstein, Roland, 1997. "Rechtsvereinheitlichung beim "droit de suite"? Ökonomische Analyse des Richtlinienentwurfs der Europäischen Kommission," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 97-02, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    2. 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. Schmidtchen, Dieter, 2007. "Vereinheitlichung des Vertragsrechts in Europa - eine Lösung auf der Suche nach dem Problem? Die Sicht der Neuen Institutionenökonomik," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2007-01, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    2. Roland Kirstein, 2006. "Blair, R. D., and Cotter, T. F.: Intellectual Property: Economic and Legal Dimensions of Rights and Remedies," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 90-93, October.

    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. Jianqiang Zhang & Weijun Zhong & Shue Mei, 2012. "Competitive effects of informative advertising in distribution channels," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 561-584, September.
    2. Muermann, Alexander & Shore, Stephen H., 2005. "Spot market power and future market trading," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 24644, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Kathryn E. Spier, 2003. "“Tied to the Mast”: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses in Settlement Contracts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 91-120, January.
    4. Vincent Mak & Amnon Rapoport & Eyran J. Gisches & Jiaojie Han, 2014. "Purchasing Scarce Products Under Dynamic Pricing: An Experimental Investigation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 425-438, July.
    5. Dubey, Pradeep & Sondermann, Dieter, 2009. "Perfect competition in an oligopoly (including bilateral monopoly)," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 124-141, January.
    6. Liberali, Guilherme & Gruca, Thomas S. & Nique, Walter M., 2011. "The effects of sensitization and habituation in durable goods markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 398-410, July.
    7. James J. Anton & Gary Biglaiser, 2010. "Quality, Upgrades, and Equilibrium in a Dynamic Monopoly Model," Working Papers 10-36, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Steven F. Koch, 2005. "Love and Addiction: The Importance of Commitment," Working Papers 200516, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    10. Galiani, Sebastian & Jaitman, Laura & Weinschelbaum, Federico, 2020. "Crime and durable goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 146-163.
    11. Beccuti, Juan & Möller, Marc, 2021. "Screening by mode of trade," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 400-420.
    12. Armstrong, Mark & Zhou, Jidong, 2010. "Exploding offers and buy-now discounts," MPRA Paper 22531, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Ying‐Ju Chen & Leon Yang Chu, 2020. "Synchronizing pricing and replenishment to serve forward‐looking customers," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(5), pages 321-333, August.
    14. James J. Anton & Gary Biglaiser, 2007. "Quality Upgrades and the (loss) of Market Power in a Dynamic Monopoly Model," Working Papers 18, Portuguese Competition Authority.
    15. Hilli, Amal & Laussel, Didier & Van Long, Ngo, 2013. "Large shareholders, monitoring, and ownership dynamics: Toward pure managerial firms?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 666-679.
    16. Sandro Brusco & Hugo Hopenhayn, 2007. "Deregulation with consensus," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 32(1), pages 223-250, July.
    17. Pangburn, Michael S. & Stavrulaki, Euthemia, 2014. "Take back costs and product durability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 175-184.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2005. "Tying, Upgrades, and Switching Costs in Durable-Goods Markets," NBER Working Papers 11407, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    resale rights; droit de suite; Screening Skill; strategic complements;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law

    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:zbw:csledp:200007. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fosaade.html .

    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.