No i think they are after artists resale royalties

that'd be my guess. looking for the artist's cut on a resale perhaps?:
DACS - the Design and Artists Copyright Society - is the UK's copyright and collecting society for artists and visual creators. We exist to promote and protect the copyright and related rights of artists and visual creators.

Sounds quite odd, I've read some of DACS website, it seems they go after money without in some cases the artist knowing anything about it, they have a list of artists on their site they have money for but they don't even know where the artists are.

They'll chase money for resale, reproduction and use purposes.

Hi Frankie
I think the validity claim is a red herring. DACS are just after a cut of every trade that the Jose Parla work has gone through to get to you.

And that includes yours when you sell it.

Looks like this thing might be a dogs dinner for dealers, galleries and anyone who has a web presence. Can anyone shed any light as to whether this is the thin edge of the wedge and whether in future we might all need to start looking over our shoulders?

Imagine ebay turning over their data to DACS coz Laz is down to his last £10m?

Thinking about it logically. As an artist who wouldn't want a slice of the resale cake? Parla's people are obviously pretty astute, but you can bet your bottom dollar there will be plenty of other artists in the future wanting some action.

below, from www.rics.org/Property/Artsandantiques/

What constitutes a ‘resale’ under the regulations?
Whether or not the original transfer of ownership was made for money or any other consideration, the sale of a work is regarded as a resale if:

* The buyer or seller or the agent of the buyer or seller is acting in the course of business of dealing in works of art; AND
* The sale process is not less than €1,000 euro.

If the seller previously acquired the work directly from the author less than three years before the sale and the price does not exceed €10,000 euro the sale of a work is NOT regarded as a resale for these purposes.

What constitutes a ‘resale’ under the regulations?
Whether or not the original transfer of ownership was made for money or any other consideration, the sale of a work is regarded as a resale if:

* The buyer or seller or the agent of the buyer or seller is acting in the course of business of dealing in works of art; AND
* The sale process is not less than €1,000 euro.

If the seller previously acquired the work directly from the author less than three years before the sale and the price does not exceed €10,000 euro the sale of a work is NOT regarded as a resale for these purposes.

What works are covered?
The works that are covered by these regulations are any work of graphic or plastic art such as a picture, a collage, a painting, a drawing, an engraving, a print, a lithograph, a sculpture, a tapestry, a ceramic, an item of glassware or a photograph.

Is a ‘copy’ considered a work under the regulations?
The only circumstance where a copy is considered to be a work under the regulations is if the copy is one of a limited number which have been made by the author or under his supervision

ouch ! Dacs will be after a % of all your sales over 650 quid made on the secondary market. They may also hold the rights to reproducing the images on your website, whether you own them or not.. I think Mike at BRP is registered with Dacs and makes resale payments. Maybe ask him how he goes about it. If you're a registered company then there's probably no way around it. Only sales between private individuals are exempt.

Banksy is a member of DACS as are quite a few of the artists on your site. You need to sort this before lawyers get involved, costs would be nightmare.

Kerching.
As the legal representative of Captain Barbossa can I request you send me a cheque for £3k for the use of his likeness.

That's a question not a statement

Am i right in thinking they are going to try to charge online galleries a fee for using the artists picture on their website also?

Just tell them to get fucked.

i would.

Baaah - try the 'Do you know who i am' approach

Frankie - I hope you're joking??

Sounds like a load of sh*te to me.

I'm well aware of and mostly agree with copyright and the use of photography, reproduction and royalty rights etc. But it sounds like in this case artists want to sell their paintings for loads of money, yet if they go up in price and the painting is resold they want to collect more portion of the profit. So do they tell you this when you buy the painting at the artists gallery. "Oh and if the painting goes up in price and you sell it, the artist must be compensated?" So basically even though you pay thousands for a painting the artists still basically co-owner of this painting? And what happens if the painting goes down in value, will the artists cover part of your loss?

Is this right? Glad we don't have this crap to deal with in the states.

tell them they can have whatever they can pull out of your ass.

If thats the case, why is Banksy registerd to them??
I dont understand why everyone is so worried, it only works on commercial sales eg somewhere like sotherbys or if your the owner of 1of the many on-line gallerys ie registerd as a gallery