Dr Colin Laverty OAM

Dr Colin Laverty OAM
Private art collector
Laverty Collection, Sydney

I wish to make the following brief submission.

I am a collector of Indigenous art of approximately 20 years standing.

I have wide experience with artists, art centre staff, agents, dealers, auction houses, researchers, curators and writers.

My wife and I own Indigenous works by some 350 different Aboriginal artists.

We have lent, by request, 197 Indigenous artworks by 92 different artists to curated exhibitions in the National, all state, and many regional galleries in Australia and to prestigious art galleries/museums in 11 overseas countries.

We have also donated 125 Indigenous artworks to several state and regional galleries under the Cultural Gifts Program.

1) DEFINITIONS USED IN THE CCC DRAFT

In the CCC draft 'Persons or entities operating in the Indigenous Art Industry' (IAI) are identified as ’dealers, agents, art galleries, auction houses and art centres, wholesalers and retailers as defined in this code'.

Purchasers/collectors, particularly at the first point-of-sale, have an extremely important role in all this but are not even mentioned as 'participants' in the 'Indigenous Art Industry' (IAI).

Quite properly the Resale Royalty Scheme and the CCC are aimed primarily at protecting artists but both have a multi-faceted role in protecting the IAI as a whole (its reputation and future success) and also as part of this in protecting collectors/purchasers.

In Part 3 Clause 19 the Code Administration Committee is referred to and its roles set-out. Under 19 (3) the committee is to be comprised of .............’representatives of the Indigenous Visual Arts Industry’. Based on how these representatives are described/defined earlier it apparently will not include any purchaser/collector. Purchasers and collectors should also be represented on such a committee.

2) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE (OR AS A RESALE ROYALTY)

Payment in Part 1 of the CCC is defined as including 'any form of remuneration or royalty unless otherwise stated'.

This needs serious consideration. It is extremely broad and can lead to abuse, especially by agents or dealers in their dealings with artists, but also with purchasers.

Payment for Artists under 10 (d), (which for unexplained reasons apparently relates only to sale of artworks and not to Resale Royalties) includes the statement that 'if the payment is to be provided in the form other than cash then a reasonable market value of the remuneration must be stated; [Note: advice to be obtained regarding non-cash payments]’.

Recently, when obtaining copyright permissions for the reproduction of works by deceased well-known Indigenous artists, two prominent dealers who represented the artists’ estates and who have had major input into the production of the CCC required copies of the published book as payment for the copyright permissions.

What happened to these books is uncertain. Taking into account the recommended retail price for the book then had the books requested all been sold at this price by the dealer and the money given to the estate, then a reasonable copyright monetary remuneration would have gone to the estate. However I think it is most unlikely that this happened. It is also possible that members of the deceased artist’s family were happy to have a copy of the book each in which their family member’s artwork was reproduced. However, I think it is much more likely that neither the books nor any money ever were received by the beneficiaries of the respective estates.

All payments for artworks, and for reproduction of artworks under copyright should, for transparency, all be made in money, and paid into or transferred promptly by the dealer, agent, or art centre to, an account held by or for the artist.

Subsequent management of this money is another issue, but at least initial payment should be transparent.

3) COMPLAINTS HANDLING SYSTEM

21 (d) provides for the appointment of a Complaints Coordinator by the signatories to the Code. I think it is extremely important that this person is not one of the signatories to the code but should be in the nature of an independent ombudsman/mediator with powers to report periodically publicly on the nature and outcome of all complaints.

4) PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Dealing with artists in division 2.1 (c) relates to unconscionable conduct between dealers and artists or their representatives and mentions unreasonable, unfair, bullying and thuggish behaviour.

This conduct also should be made a condition of dealing with purchasers/collectors of artworks and with authors, researchers and publishers.

For example, permission to reproduce artworks should not be used by either art centre directors/managers/coordinators (be they either Aboriginal community owned or not) or by dealers representing artists or artists’ estates to bully or blackmail those genuinely interested for reasonable, well-intentioned promotional, commercial or research purposes in wanting to reproduce, research or write about artists and their work. This has certainly happened in my experience.

All Art Centres that are in any way Government funded/supported should be recipients of support and guidance but also subjected to oversight, monitoring and accountability in dealing with other participants in the IAI.

An umbrella organisation to which community art centres report is needed - neither Desart nor Ankaaa seem to have adequate powers to ensure that art centre personnel always act in the best interest of the community artists which they represent.