Thread: IACA ReDux
View Single Post
Old 01-07-2012, 12:54 AM   #93
OLChemist
Pow Wow Committee
 
OLChemist's Avatar
 
Items ElephantPresent
User InfoThanks / Tagging InfoGifts / Achievements / AwardsvBActivity Stats
OLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond repute
OLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond reputeOLChemist has a reputation beyond repute
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,401
Credits: 0.00
Savings: 0.00
Quote:
Originally Posted by yaahl View Post
I've always seen the IACA as more of a merchandising and false advertising piece of legislation rather than a beefed up piece of legislation to protect Natives and their work.

Yeap. This is a multimillion dollar business. And that is just the investor and gallery owner's take, LOL. The artists are the small fish in the pond.

The value of so much of the work relies of the provenance of the work. Until the IACA, the burden of determination of "Indian authenticity" was on the gallery owner. So the owners had to either know the artist and community or make judgements on phenotype. I could see this being a huge liability for the gallery owner. One peeved buyer with a good attorney and OUCH! Under the IACA, they have a single standard to use.

This law does far more to protect the buyer. Sorry Zeke, the reality is for many buyers the value of the work is in the pedigree of the artist, particularly in the antiquities side. Quality is rarely the first thing a buyer notices; art sales are a first date not a test drive.

You'd get better artist protection with education and use of intellectual property law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yaahl View Post
One thing I noticed when reading the IACA, is that it doesn't protect artists when their work is re-sold. In some jurisdiction - Cali for one, protects artists from unfair purchasing with respect to their art by affording them the right to collect royalties of their work when resold.
That is an extremely rare protection for visual artists, at least in the states.
OLChemist is offline   Reply With Quote Share with Facebook