The Artist’s Resale Right: A century-old idea supporting visual creators today
As the UK marks 20 years of the Artist’s Resale Right, Georgina Adam explores the law’s beginnings and its expanding influence on artists.
In 1889 the widow of the artist Jean-François Millet, poverty-stricken after the death of her husband in 1875, saw one of his most renowned paintings, The Angelus, sell for 553,000 francs. In his lifetime Millet had sold it for just 1,000 francs, but when it was resold for a record-breaking price, his almost destitute family did not get a single sou - despite the dramatic increase in value.
As a direct result of this poignant story, the French set about framing legislation to right the scandal. In 1921 the authorities wrote into law the “Droit de Suite” (“right to follow”), a levy on the resale of art. Belgium followed a year later, and then in the 1940s the Berne Convention on copyright added it as a voluntary right.
Today, no less than 90 countries have adopted ARR, including Australia, New Zealand and many others. The exception is the United States of America, where ARR does not exist except in a limited form in the state of California. Efforts are however ongoing to bring in a 5% royalty on the resale of art in the country, although with no positive outcome so far.
How does ARR work?
So what exactly is ARR, and how does it work? ARR is a percentage payable when an original work of art - such as a painting, sculpture or photograph - is resold, either at auction or through a professional dealer. By law, it is paid by the seller and the art-market professional involved in the sale. ARR applies on all sales over £1,000 in the UK and is calculated on a sliding scale, capped at £12,500. It is not a tax, since it does not go to the taxman but is sent to the artist through collecting societies: in the UK these are the Artists’ Collecting Society (ACS) and the Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS). And incidentally, artists can’t sell the right - but they can leave it in their will to a family member or friend.
Let’s take a practical example: Francis Bacon’s Untitled (Head) (c.1948), which hammered at Phillips in March 2022 for £620,000. The buyer would have paid an additional ARR on the hammer price, plus buyer’s premium. Because it is calculated progressively the ARR was £7,758.09; not all went to the estate, since DACS takes a 15% fee for administration.
ARR was harmonized throughout the European Union in 2001, and five years later the UK adopted it too, after a long campaign by artists, estates and wider arts-sector advocates such as Chris Bryant MP, currently Minister of State at the Department for Business and Trade. The campaign was supported by collecting bodies including DACS. The question then was whether ARR should apply only to works by living artists, or also to works by deceased artists, with a cut-off at 70 years after death. Initially, the UK limited ARR to works by living artists, but in 2012 it was extended to cover deceased artists’ estates as well.
The UK, as we have seen, adopted ARR in 2006 and initial fears about its impact on what was, at the time, the second largest market for art and antiques in the world, with £4.2 billion in turnover, were soon proved wrong. Despite the introduction the market continued to grow over the following years - £8 billion in 2006 and £8.2 billion in 2007.
Then there was more consternation in 2012 when the levy was extended to work by deceased artists. Art market professionals voiced concerns that it would damage the market or drive business abroad. Again, the market absorbed the change without any apparent harm. By 2024 (the last year for which complete data is available) the UK had retained its position as the world’s second largest market with turnover of $10.4 billion (about £7.73 billion), despite a downturn in overall sales. Of that, ARR royalties account for just 0.1% of the overall UK art market value, according to DACS.
Artist Tai-Shan Schierenberg, who is represented by the Flowers Gallery in London, says: “I love getting ARR even if in my case it is not a huge amount because my work does not come up for resale that frequently.” He continues: “It is always a nice surprise to receive ARR and I am in admiration of DACS who manage to track down sales in provincial auction houses, for example, that I wouldn’t know about. And it’s tax free!”
“ARR is a bit polarising, and we do have some members who are opposed to it,” says Paul Hewitt, Director General of the Society of London Art Dealers (SLAD); “However it is mandatory and in addition the collecting agencies such as DACS are well organised and do a good job.”
When ARR was brought into the UK, one of the points of contention was that ARR could mainly benefit the heirs of highly successful artists such as Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque or Henri Matisse. Indeed, it is part of Picasso Administration’s, global revenue portfolio which is estimated at around $8 million annually from licensing, ARR and other income, according to a 2016 article . At the same time, in DACS’ 2023 ARR report shows the picture is more mixed: around 64% of payments to artists are under £500 - amounts that may be relatively small individually, but can make a tangible difference to living and emerging artists, for whom resale income can help offset day-to-day costs such as studio rent and materials.
In a tough financial climate, these royalties can support the future of the next generation of creatives. Interdisciplinary artist Yinka Shonibare CBE explains: “The more we can do to support younger artists and to ensure there are mechanisms in place that protect their interests now and for the future, the better. The Artist’s Resale Right supports those at the heart of this country’s creative economy and is a right we should all be proud of.”
It is always a nice surprise to receive ARR and I am in admiration of DACS who manage to track down sales in provincial auction houses, for example, that I wouldn’t know about.
Artist
One opponent was the multi-millionaire London dealer and collector Ivor Braka, who initially refused to pay ARR, invoking a number of arguments including the one above. In a landmark case, DACS and ACS launched a legal action, but before it reached the High Court the case was settled. The three parties, according to a statement at the time, were: “look[ing] forward to working together to provide artists with the royalties to which they are entitled.”
Another complaint was that the ARR does not take account of a loss-making sale, for example when a work is resold for less than its previous price. In practice, however, the amount due is calculated on a sliding scale based on the hammer price, so it rises and falls with the resale value. “It would be good if the collecting societies found a solution to this,” says Hewitt. If an artist or payee cannot be traced, DACS holds the money and, after six years, returns any undistributed ARR to the art-market professional.
Nevertheless, ARR has now benefited more than 67,000 artists in the UK alone - while also going some way towards righting the historical wrong inflicted on the Millet family all those years ago. The UK is also the largest distributor of ARR worldwide, and the principle continues to spread beyond Europe, with countries such as Australia and New Zealand bringing in ARR over the past few years with other countries on the horizon.
About the author
Georgina Adam was previously the Art Market editor at The Art Newspaper and now holds the position of editor‑at‑large. She also writes for the Financial Times Life & Arts section, teaches at the Sotheby’s and Christie’s institutes in London, and is a frequent speaker on art‑market panels.
