The Paintings, Copyrights, & Resale U/S 53A! And The Dilemma Hiding Behind Narnia’s Wardrobe!

 

Problem with Section 53A is-> is it fulfilling the purpose, for which it was even introduced?

Take this example! If you’re a Collector of expensive and valuable watches, and if in case you want to resell it, would you be asked to pay upto 10% percent value of those watches, to the Companies, let’s say to Omega? Nope! That’s not the case! Because you’re the Owner, albeit NOT the Copyright Holder, subject to Contract, if any executed!

The same goes for the Paintings, but with a twist, as per my dilemma! The section was basically for the painters’ whose paintings don’t end up in the market to be considered as valuable! Thanks to the PR! So herein the problem comes. The street painters don’t sell their paintings for the value of more than 10k. Correct? Means, give me one example wherein if someone has bought a painting worth more than 10K from the street & from the original artist! Thus, the real question is: for whom this section was supposed to even work?

Now, what’s my dilemma and opinion is: either scrap the idea of 10K and include everything of any price, or, let say increase the price of the paintings only, let’s say, 50k, but now, instead of quoting of more than 50k, , now, mention the value should be less than 50k in the section itself, for the reason that if the painting is sold of more than of this price range, then it is presumed that the painter himself must be not in a dire situation, again for the reason that, if the painter can exhibit his/her paintings, and wherein this is also the reality that the painters don’t earn with Single Retailer’s money, rather, via any Collector who buys in one go, or, with any company, which is going under renovation or re-design. This is the truth!

Thus, Section 53A is not serving the purpose for all the painters. Correct? Rather I’m telling you what’s happening. The big designers buys without any agreement or even the name written on the paint, and then, use it for their own purposes with some basic changes. Is it ethical? Nope!  

And further adding to my proposal, make it also mandatory that even if the street artist is selling any painting, there should be a single page written document be given by him, that would accompany the pain work what’s been sold (let’s say picture of it), year, artist’s name, and price. Now, to protect the identity of the Purchaser, don’t mention his/her name on it (needs discussion on it), YET¸ at least mention the above details of the artists. What will this achieve? This will protect those artistic works and designs, and further, no other artist or the designer would be able to use those designs for their works, as the original artists’ would be having the copy of the proof of work that was sold. This will help protecting the street painters/artists

Am I missing something? Please ask any Major Art Gallery! Is my dilemma about Section 53A worth overlooking and thus be sent back to the Narnia’s Closet?😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi