Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Notices 58175 

Order 11612, as amended, to advise the 

Secretary of Labor on all matters relating 

to the occupational safety and health of 

federal employees. This includes 

providing advice on how to reduce and 

keep to a minimum the number of 

injuries and illnesses in the federal 

workforce and how to encourage each 

federal Executive Branch department 

and agency to establish and maintain 

effective occupational safety and health 

programs. 

OSHA transcribes and prepares 

detailed minutes of FACOSH meetings. 

The Agency puts transcripts, minutes, 

subcommittee reports, and other 

materials presented at the meeting in 

the public record of the FACOSH 

meeting, which is posted at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Public Participation, Submissions, and 

Access to Public Record 

FACOSH meetings: FACOSH 

meetings are open to the public. 

Individuals attending meetings at the 

U.S. Department of Labor must enter the 

building at the Visitors’ Entrance, 3rd 

and C Streets NW., and pass through 

building security. Attendees must have 

valid government-issued photo 

identification to enter the building. For 

additional information about building 

security measures for attending the 

FACOSH meeting, please contact Ms. 

Chatmon (see ADDRESSES section). 

Please submit your request for special 

accommodations to attend the FACOSH 

meeting to Ms. Chatmon. 

Submission of requests to speak and 

speaker presentations. You may submit 

a request to speak to FACOSH about the 

topics of the meeting and speaker 

presentations by one of the methods 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. Your 

request must include: 

• The amount of time you request to 

speak; 

• The interest you represent (e.g., 

organization name), if any; and, 

• A brief outline of your presentation. 

PowerPoint speaker presentations and 

other electronic materials must be 

compatible with PowerPoint 2010 and 

other Microsoft Office 2010 formats. 

The FACOSH Chair may grant 

requests to address FACOSH at his 

discretion, and as time and 

circumstances permit. 

Submission of written comments. You 

also may submit written comments, 

including data and other information, 

using any of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. You may 

supplement electronic submissions by 

uploading documents electronically. If 

you wish to submit hard copies of 

supplementary documents instead, you 

must submit them to the OSHA Docket 

Office using the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. The additional 

materials must clearly identify your 

electronic submission by name, date, 

and docket number. 

Because of security-related 

procedures, submitting comments, 

requests to speak, and speaker 

presentations by regular mail may cause 

a significant delay in their receipt. For 

information about security procedures 

concerning submissions by hand, 

express delivery, and messenger/courier 

service, please contact the OSHA Docket 

Office (see ADDRESSES section). OSHA 

will provide copies of your submissions 

to FACOSH members prior to the 

meeting. 

Access to submissions and public 

record. OSHA places comments, 

requests to speak, and speaker 

presentations, including any personal 

information you provide, in the 

FACOSH public docket without change 

and those documents may be available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, OSHA cautions interested 

parties about submitting certain 

personal information, such as Social 

Security numbers and birthdates. 

OSHA also puts meeting transcripts, 

minutes, work group reports, and 

documents presented at the FACOSH 

meeting in the public record of the 

FACOSH meeting. 

To read or download documents in 

the public record, go to Docket No. 

OSHA–2012–0006, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although all 

meeting documents are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index, some 

documents (e.g., copyrighted material) 

are not publicly available to read or 

download through that Web page. All 

meeting documents, including 

copyrighted material, are available for 

inspection and copying at the OSHA 

Docket Office. 

Information on using the http:// 

www.regulations.gov to make 

submissions and to access the public 

record of the FACOSH meeting is 

available at that Web page. Please 

contact the OSHA Docket Office for 

information about materials not 

available through that Web page and for 

assistance for making submissions and 

obtaining documents in the public 

record. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice are available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This notice, as 

well as news releases and other relevant 

information about FACOSH, is available 

at OSHA’s Web page at http:// 

www.osha.gov. 

Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, 

directed the preparation of this notice 

under the authority granted by section 

19 of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 

U.S.C. 7902, the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 

2), 41 CFR part 102–3, section 1–5 of 

Executive Order 12196 (45 CFR 12729 

(7/27/1980)), and Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/ 

2012)). 

Signed at Washington, DC, on September 

14, 2012. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23106 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2012–10] 

Resale Royalty Right 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

undertaking an inquiry at the request of 

Congress to review how current 

copyright law affects and supports 

visual artists; and how a federal resale 

royalty right for visual artists would 

affect current and future practices of 

groups or individuals involved in the 

creation, licensing, sale, exhibition, 

dissemination, and preservation of 

works of visual art. The Office thus 

seeks comments from the public on the 

means by which visual artists exploit 

their works under existing law as well 

as the issues and obstacles that may be 

encountered when considering a federal 

resale royalty right in the United States. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time 

(EDT) on November 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, 

please visit http://www.copyright.gov/ 

docs/resaleroyalty. The Web site 

interface requires submitters to 

complete a form specifying name and 

organization, as applicable, and to 

upload comments as an attachment via 

a browser button. To meet accessibility 

standards, submitters must upload 

comments in a single file not to exceed 

six megabytes (MB) in one of the 

following formats: The Adobe Portable 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
58176 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Notices 

1Resale royalty rights are optional under 

applicable international treaties. See Berne 

Convention for the Protection of Literary and 

Artistic Works, art. 14ter, Jul. 24, 1971, 25 U.S.T. 

1341, 8282 U.N.T.S. 221 (as amended Sep. 28, 

1979). 

2 Visual artists are granted very limited rights to 

prevent certain modifications to their works under 

the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 17 U.S.C. 

106A. VARA does not provide additional economic 

benefits. 

3See Patricia Cohen, Artists File Lawsuits Seeking 

Royalties, New York Times, Nov. 1, 2011, available 

at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/arts/design/ 

artists-file-suit-against-sothebys-christies-andebay.html?pagewanted=all. 

4See Joshua Rogers, How to Outsmart the 

Billionaires Who’ll Bid $80 Million for ‘‘The 

Scream,’’ Forbes, Apr. 4, 2012, available at http:// 

www.forbes.com/sites/joshuarogers/2012/04/04/ 

how-to-outsmart-the-billionaires-wholl-bid-80- 

million-for-the-scream/. 

5See United States Copyright Office, Droit De 

Suite: The Artist’s Resale Royalty 2 (1992) 

(‘‘Report’’), available at http://www.copyright.gov/ 

history/droit_de_suite.pdf. 

Document File (PDF) format that 

contains searchable, accessible text (not 

an image); Microsoft Word; 

WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or 

ASCII text file format (not a scanned 

document). The form and face of the 

comments must include both the name 

of the submitter and organization. The 

Office will post all comments publicly 

on the Office’s Web site exactly as they 

are received, along with names and 

organizations. If electronic submission 

of comments is not feasible, please 

contact the Office at 202–707–8380 for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Okai, Counsel, Office of Policy 

and International Affairs, by telephone 

at 202–707–9444 or by electronic mail at 

jokai@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

An artist resale royalty, or droit de 

suite as it is often called in Europe, 

provides artists with an opportunity to 

benefit from the increased value of their 

works over time by granting them a 

percentage of the proceeds from the 

resale of their original works of art. The 

royalty originated in France in the 1920s 

and is in general practice throughout 

Europe, but is not part of current United 

States copyright law.1 Under the 

Copyright Act (the ‘‘Act’’), 17 U.S.C. 101 

et seq., artists, like other authors, are 

provided a bundle of exclusive rights, 

including rights to reproduce, distribute 

and create adaptations of the works. 

Federal copyright law, however, does 

not generally grant artists or authors 

rights to control the subsequent use of 

the original work.2 Rather, the first sale 

doctrine, codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, 

generally permits the lawful owner of a 

copyrighted work to display, sell or 

dispose of the work without the 

authorization of the creator under most 

circumstances. 

For many authors of works such as 

books, musical works and sound 

recordings, the copyright system 

provides substantial economic benefits 

and incentives through subsequent uses 

or performances of those works by way 

of licensing or contractual 

arrangements. For example, an author 

may sell rights in his or her novel to a 

publisher, or sell the right to create a 

screenplay to a writer, or sell the right 

to create a motion picture from that 

screenplay. At each point in the life 

cycle of that novel, numerous 

opportunities arise for the author to earn 

income from the original novel without 

having to write another book or restrict 

the number of books available for 

purchase in the marketplace. Indeed, a 

novelist and his publisher may offer 

millions of copies of the same book to 

buyers, a filmmaker may distribute 

millions of DVDs of his film, and a 

songwriter may authorize millions of 

downloads. In each case, every 

purchaser receives the same work and 

for the same value as the original. 

By contrast, in the case of certain 

visual artworks, there can only be one 

sale at a time, and only the initial sale 

will inure to the benefit of the actual 

creator. A sculptor or painter may spend 

months or years creating one work of art 

and when that work is completed it is 

a unique and singular representation of 

the artist’s intent. Unlike books, DVDs 

or songs, the value of the work is based 

on its originality and scarcity. This 

means that over time, it may be a 

collector or other downstream entity 

that will derive the most financial 

benefit. 

The Office recognizes that buyers of 

artworks, including collectors, galleries 

and auction houses, frequently purchase 

artworks as investments. These persons 

may act as important catalysts over 

time, helping to increase the value of 

certain artworks through exhibitions 

and additional sales, or by supporting 

the careers of artists through payment or 

promotion. The question thus becomes 

one of perceived fairness under the law. 

Should these agents and investors 

benefit exclusively, or should they be 

compelled to provide some additional 

compensation to the artists who made 

the buyers’ profits possible? Indeed, 

California purportedly developed its 

state law on resale royalties in part as 

a result of the indignation felt by many 

within the artistic community when 

Robert Rauschenberg’s 1958 painting 

‘‘Thaw,’’ which was originally sold for 

$900, was resold at auction fifteen years 

later for $85,000 without compensation 

to the artist.3 According to some 

sources, certain fine art can appreciate 

by more than 10% in value per year.4

To be clear, any artist may by contract 

attempt to negotiate a partial interest in 

his work with a buyer, thereby reserving 

for him or herself a financial interest in 

its future value. However, this is by no 

means a common practice for 

transactions of fine art, even for 

accomplished artists, and it seems 

unlikely for one who is just starting out. 

There are also some accommodations 

available to visual artists in the broader 

marketplace. For example, some artists 

may exploit their works in other ways, 

such as through reproductions or the 

creation of derivative works. For some, 

this may be lucrative; however, for 

others the very nature of their visual art 

may limit the ability to create such 

derivative markets. In general, although 

visual art may be reproduced or adapted 

in the form of prints, postcards, 

miniature models of sculptures or even 

refrigerator magnets, the income 

realized from the sales of these items is 

not likely to approach the income that 

the original artwork will bring if it 

increases in value and is sold and resold 

at auction, in private galleries or 

through private sales. 

A. Previous Inquiry 

In 1991, Congress requested the 

Copyright Office to conduct a study on 

the feasibility of legislation that would 

require purchasers of works of art, 

subsequent to the initial sale of the 

work, to pay the artist or the artist’s 

heirs a percentage of the sale price. 

Published in December 1992, the 

Copyright Office report concluded that 

there was insufficient economic and 

copyright policy justification for 

enacting resale royalty right or droit de 

suite legislation in the United States.5

The Office expressed concern that 

implementing a resale royalty right 

might be harmful to visual artists who 

lack a viable resale market because 

primary market prices might decline as 

a result of factoring in the future royalty. 

The Office further explained that 

imposing a federal resale royalty on 

sales transactions may conflict with the 

traditional United States concept of free 

alienability of property. The Office 

proposed alternatives to a resale royalty 

right, including compulsory licenses, 

broader display rights, rental rights and 

federal grants for public works of art. 

The Office also identified eight areas to 

be considered if legislation were to be 

proposed: Oversight, types of sales, 

threshold amount, term, foreign authors, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Notices 58177 

6See id. at 8; see also The Artist’s Resale Right 

Regulations, 2006 S.I. 346 (U.K.), at art. 2, schedule 

2; Liste de Pays Dont le Ressotissants Beneficiant 

du Droit de Suite a Juin 2007 (‘‘List of Countries’’) 

[List of Countries whose Citizens Benefit from the 

Resale Royalty Right as of June 2007], Societe des 

Auteurs dans les Arts Graphiques et Plastiques, 

available at http://www.adagp.fr/ENG/ 

Liste_pays_droit_de_suite.pdf. 

7Council Directive 2001/84/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 

on the Resale for the Benefit of the Author of an 

Original Work of Art, art 1, 2001 O.J. (L 272) 32– 

36. 

8See Liste de Pays Dont le Ressotissants 

Beneficiant du Droit de Suite a Juin 2007 [List of 

Countries whose Citizens Benefit from the Resale 

Royalty Right as of June 2007], Societe des Auteurs 

dans les Arts Graphiques et Plastiques, available at 

http://www.adagp.fr/ENG/ 

Liste_pays_droit_de_suite.pdf. 

9CAL. CIV. CODE § 986 (West 2012). 

10See Estate of Graham v. Sotheby’s Inc., 11–CV– 

08604, 2012 WL 1765445 at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 

2012). 

alienability, types of works and 

retroactivity. Congress did not enact 

legislation creating a resale royalty right 

at the federal level and there has been 

no formal congressional deliberation on 

this topic since the 1992 report. In its 

report, the Copyright Office also 

suggested that Congress may wish to 

review the issue if the European 

Community extended royalty rights to 

all of its Member States. 

B. International Developments 

Since the Office published its study in 

1992, the legal landscape in foreign 

jurisdictions with respect to resale 

royalty treatment has changed. In 1992, 

thirty-six countries had resale royalty 

legislation; today, that number has 

increased to more than sixty.6 In 2001, 

the European Union adopted a Directive 

generally requiring Member States to 

implement harmonized resale royalty 

legislation by 2006.7 The Directive 

requires Member States to establish a 

royalty for all resales involving an art 

market professional, including auctions, 

private dealers and galleries. Member 

States have some flexibility to 

determine what threshold resale price 

would trigger the royalty below Ö3,000 

(euros), and to provide for compulsory 

or optional collective management of 

the royalty. The Directive caps the 

royalty at Ö12,500, regardless of the 

resale price. As a result of the Directive, 

droit de suite is now a component of 

national laws across the European 

community. The United Kingdom, 

which is one of the largest art markets 

in the world, implemented its resale 

royalty legislation in 2006. Artists also 

receive resale royalties in many 

countries outside of the European 

Union, including Algeria, Australia, 

Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, 

Chile, Congo, Columbia, Costa Rica, 

Croatia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guinea, 

Hondorus, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Laos, 

Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, 

Morocco, Nicaragua, Paragua, Panama, 

Peru, Peru, Philippines, Romania, 

Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia and 

Montenegro, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay 

and Venezuela.8

C. State Law 

To date, the only resale royalty 

legislation in the United States has been 

at the state level in California, where it 

has operated with mixed success. The 

California Resale Royalty Act was 

enacted in 1976 and imposes several 

conditions prior to payment of the 

royalty: The artist must be a U.S. citizen 

or a California resident of at least two 

years; the seller must reside in 

California or the sale executed in 

California; the artwork must be ‘‘fine 

art,’’ (i.e., an original sculpture, 

painting, drawing, or work in glass); and 

the work must be sold for more money 

than was paid for it and for at least 

$1,000.9 The seller or seller’s agent is 

required to pay the 5% royalty directly 

to the artist or the artist agent. If the 

latter cannot be found, the seller or 

seller’s agent must pay the royalty to the 

California Arts Council, which 

continues the search for the beneficiary 

artist. The California Arts Council does 

not charge an administrative fee for this 

service. 

Notably, after thirty-five years on the 

books, a federal district in California 

recently declared the California Resale 

Royalty Act unconstitutional under the 

Commerce Clause. The court concluded 

that the state statute impinged on the 

federal government’s authority to 

control commerce among the states 

because it regulated sales occurring 

wholly outside of California.10 An 

appeal is pending in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

D. Proposed Legislation 

On December 15, 2011, Senator Kohl 

of Wisconsin and Representative Nadler 

of New York introduced bills in the 

112th Congress titled, Equity for Visual 

Artists Act of 2011 (EVAA), S.2000 and 

H.R. 3688 respectively. The EVAA 

requires a resale royalty right, under 

certain circumstances, to be collected 

from the seller. The proposed royalty 

would be triggered when a work of 

visual art is sold at auction for at least 

$10,000 by someone other than the 

authoring artist. Following the sale, the 

entity receiving the proceeds pays a 

royalty of 7% to a qualifying visual 

artists’ collecting society. The collecting 

society is required to distribute 50% of 

the net royalty to the artists or successor 

as copyright owner and place the other 

50% of net royalty into an escrow 

account to support U.S. nonprofit 

museums in their future purchases of 

visual art created by living artists 

domiciled in the United States. Failure 

to remit the royalty to the collecting 

society is copyright infringement subject 

to statutory damages. The EVAA also 

directs the Register of Copyrights to 

issue regulations governing the 

designation and oversight of visual 

artists’ collecting societies. 

In a letter dated May 17, 2012, 

Senator Kohl and Representative Nadler 

requested that the Copyright Office 

‘‘assess how existing law affects and 

supports visual artists, and how a 

federal resale royalty provision would 

affect copyright law, visual artists and 

those involved in the sale of art work.’’ 

The Office therefore seeks comments 

from interested parties on how visual 

artists exploit their works under existing 

law, including any limitations due to 

the nature of visual art, and the effect, 

if any, a resale royalty right would have 

on the promotion, dissemination and 

sale of works of visual art. 

II. Discussion 

There are a variety of factors to 

consider when examining how visual 

art is treated under the Copyright Act 

and whether a federal resale royalty 

right would foster the goals of the 

copyright system. Among the issues are: 

Current Copyright Law Implications: 

The first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. 109) is 

a fundamental tenet of U.S. law. It helps 

to maintain the copyright system’s 

balance between incentives for authors 

and the public’s interest in widespread 

dissemination of copyrighted works. 

How a federal resale royalty right would 

affect the first sale doctrine is therefore 

of paramount interest to the Office, as is 

the interaction with any other 

exceptions and limitations that support 

the dissemination of works of art to the 

public. 

Promoting Production of Creative 

Works: Copyright law furthers the 

creation and/or distribution of new 

works and provides authors (and those 

who invest in the works of authors) with 

certain incentives and protections under 

the law. Therefore, whether the 

adoption of a federal resale royalty 

regime would further incentivize and 

protect the authors of certain visual 

artworks is also of paramount interest to 

the Office. 

Fostering the Art Marketplace: The 

effect of a resale royalty on current or 

future markets is a related, important 

question, though that is not to say that 

the law must or should protect all 

existing business models. Is it possible, 

however, that a resale royalty right 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
58178 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Notices 

might add to the costs of those who buy 

and invest in artworks and, if so, are 

such costs acceptable from a policy 

perspective? In this regard, the art 

market should be broadly defined, 

including emerging artists, heirs, 

investors and collectors. 

Scope and Applicability of a Royalty: 

A threshold question is what categories 

of works should be covered under a 

resale royalty right. For example, the 

California resale royalty provision 

governs works of ‘‘fine art, ‘‘while the 

European Directive covers all ‘‘original 

works of art.’’ The EVAA would cover 

works of ‘‘visual art’’ as defined in 

Section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act. 

The Office is aware that some artists 

today work in series, producing limited 

numbers of identical works and some 

works that may have been sold as 

unique creations in the past are now 

sold in copies including, for example, 

so-called Internet Art. Moreover, some 

artists, though certainly not most, are 

moving from a business model where 

works are sold to one where access is 

licensed. Such issues may inform the 

appropriate scope of fine art, original art 

or the like. 

Contractual Considerations: For any 

number of reasons, an artist or his or her 

heirs may not wish to participate in the 

resale royalty right process through a 

collecting society, and may wish instead 

to pursue payment of a royalty directly 

from the seller; or an artist or his or her 

heirs may wish to waive or 

contractually discharge his or her right 

to receive the royalty. For example, an 

artist may wish to waive the right to 

receive the royalty in return for a higher 

initial sale price rather than wait the 

years or decades for a work to sell at 

auction, or an artist may wish to 

contract privately with the initial seller 

to provide for a payment of a percentage 

of any future sales, although the 

enforceability of this type of contractual 

term has been questioned. In each 

instance, however, it is the artist setting 

their individual terms of sale and 

determining individual contractual 

obligations with each initial seller, not 

a statute. Alternatively, an artist may 

prefer to receive a lesser royalty in 

return for a third party to administer 

and distribute payments due. 

Perspective on the issue of how to 

address the contractual issues 

associated with a resale royalty right, 

including whether the right should be 

transferable or waivable, is helpful to 

the Office in exploring the practical 

effect of a resale royalty. 

Types of Transactions: Art is bought 

and sold through myriad channels and 

venues. Many artists are affiliated with 

galleries that buy, consign, sell and even 

resell works to private or corporate 

clients. Other transactions occur in well 

publicized auctions, private auctions, 

online or even through direct internet 

sales. The laws in California, United 

Kingdom, France and Australia appear 

to cover a broad range of transactions 

involving art market professionals, 

including those through online sales, 

private galleries and auctions. Given the 

variety of ways in which works of art 

are sold or transferred in the U.S. and 

across borders, a significant factor for 

the Office to consider is to what extent 

a resale royalty should apply or be 

managed in the numerous commercial 

channels, or whether the resale royalty 

should apply to some types of 

transactions and not others. 

Duration of Term: One of the 

rationales for having a copyright term 

extending post mortem of the author is 

to provide income and benefits to the 

heirs of the artist or author. This 

rationale may not apply in the same way 

to a federal resale royalty. Many 

countries, however, simply follow their 

general copyright term (such as life of 

the author plus seventy years), while the 

California state law uses a term of life 

of the author plus twenty years. Thus, 

consideration should be given to the 

appropriate duration of such a right and 

how the specific duration or term of a 

right would support the goals of the 

copyright system. 

Threshold Values: Not every artist’s 

works sell for tens of thousands or even 

millions of dollars. Many works may be 

resold by collectors for hundreds or 

thousands of dollars at local auctions, 

charity events, or perhaps even some 

larger sales events. Any such resulting 

royalty from these smaller payments 

may be outweighed by the costs 

incurred by making the payment. Also, 

if an artwork is sold at a charity event, 

the proceeds are not realized by the 

seller, but by the charity. Under a 

traditional rubric, it appears that the 

charity would be responsible for 

payment of the royalty, which lessens 

the amount it may redirect toward its 

charitable efforts. The Office would find 

it helpful to explore the issue of 

whether a minimum amount of money 

realized from a sale must be attained in 

order for the requirement of a royalty 

payment to be made, and if so, what 

standards would be appropriate. For 

example, the California resale royalty 

applies to sales of $1,000 or more, while 

the European directive sets a maximum 

threshold of Ö3,000. The EVAA would 

impose a $10,000 threshold on 

transactions subject to the royalty. It 

would be helpful to receive information 

about these varying approaches and 

how the different thresholds may 

support the goals behind the royalty. 

Payment and Enforcement: It is 

possible that under a resale royalty 

scheme, the artist and the subsequent 

seller may have no contractual 

relationship and therefore the only 

obligation on the payer of the royalty 

would likely be statutory. Therefore, 

any statute would likely include 

provisions to enforce the payment of the 

royalty and remedies to both the artist 

and the collective management 

organization should such an 

organization be utilized. One may also 

envision a situation in which the artists 

or his or her heirs are unable to be 

located. The seller may not know how 

or have the means to locate the artist or 

heirs, and may be under obligation to 

pay the royalty indefinitely. 

Calculating a Royalty: The basis for 

calculating a resale royalty could be set 

in different ways, for example, based on 

the present sale price of the art work, or 

its appreciated value (i.e., the difference 

between the initial sale price and 

present sale price). Each formula for 

calculating a royalty rate could have 

different consequences for the artist and 

seller and would need to be considered 

as part of the royalty mechanisms in 

place. 

Royalty Rate: The amount of the 

royalty could affect the market and 

artists in different ways and should be 

assessed, including reviewing the 

experience of other jurisdictions. The 

EVAA would set a royalty rate of 7%, 

while California and Australia set a 

royalty of 5%. The European Directive 

adopts a sliding scale based on the 

amount of the transaction, from 5% for 

transactions involving sales of Ö50,000 

to a royalty of only 0.25% for 

transactions over Ö500,000. The 

European Directive also caps the 

maximum royalty at Ö12,500. The Office 

seeks information about what factors 

should be considered in setting an 

appropriate royalty rate and how the 

royalty rate might affect artists and the 

art market. 

Administration of a Royalty: 

Additionally, if the royalty payments 

are collectively managed, administrative 

costs born by the collecting society are 

usually deducted from the final 

payment to the artist rather than added 

to the cost of the royalty paid by the 

seller. The final amount paid to the 

artist or his or her heirs will 

undoubtedly be less than the amount 

collected and may not be fully known 

until payment is made. In addition, a 

certain level of transparency in such a 

collecting society would be required in 

order to provide the artists and his or 

her heirs with a sufficiently clear 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Notices 58179 

accounting of payments in relation to 

the administrative costs associated with 

operating as the collecting society. It 

would be helpful to understand whether 

collective management of royalty 

payments should be proposed, and if so, 

what type of entity should be authorized 

(e.g., government or private) and what 

standards should apply. 

Experience in other Jurisdictions: As 

noted above, a resale royalty currently 

applies under state law in California, as 

well as in many European and Latin 

American countries. These jurisdictions 

have taken different approaches to the 

issues identified above (i.e., transactions 

covered, thresholds, royalty rates and 

administration). It would be helpful for 

the Copyright Office to receive 

information on the practical experience 

of those jurisdictions, any obstacles that 

may have been encountered, and data 

on the effect of the right on those 

markets. 

Changes Since the Last Report: The 

Copyright Office last reviewed the resale 

royalty in 1992. It is therefore interested 

in any information addressing whether 

there have been significant policy or 

economic changes that should be 

considered when assessing the current 

feasibility of a resale royalty. 

Alternatives to a Resale Royalty: As 

the Copyright Office acknowledged in 

its 1992 report, there may be 

alternatives to a resale royalty that 

would further the goals of promoting 

creativity and the public dissemination 

of visual art. 

IV. Subject of Inquiry and Conclusion 

The Office hereby seeks comment 

from the public on factual and policy 

matters addressed above, including the 

potential effect of a resale royalty on 

visual artists, current copyright law and 

practical implications for commerce. If 

there are any pertinent issues not 

discussed above, the Office encourages 

interested parties to raise those matters 

in their comments. The Office may also 

publish a further Notice of Inquiry 

posing specific questions and possibly 

exploring additional alternatives 

following the receipt of comments in 

response to this Notice. 

Dated: September 13, 2012. 

Karyn Temple Claggett, 

Senior Counsel for Policy and International 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23076 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Nixon Presidential Historical Materials: 

Opening of Materials 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration 

ACTION: Notice of opening of additional 

materials 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

opening of additional Nixon 

Presidential Historical Materials by the 

Richard Nixon Presidential Library and 

Museum, a division of the National 

Archives and Records Administration. 

Notice is hereby given that, in 

accordance with section 104 of Title I of 

the Presidential Recordings and 

Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA, 44 

U.S.C. 2111 note) and 1275.42(b) of the 

PRMPA Regulations implementing the 

Act (36 CFR Part 1275), the Agency has 

identified, inventoried, and prepared for 

public access additional textual 

materials with certain information 

redacted as required by law, including 

the PRMPA. 

DATES: The Richard Nixon Presidential 

Library and Museum intends to make 

the materials described in this notice 

available to the public on Tuesday, 

October 23, 2012, at the Richard Nixon 

Library and Museum’s primary location 

in Yorba Linda, CA, beginning at 10:00 

a.m. PDT/1:00 p.m. EDT. In accordance 

with 36 CFR 1275.44, any person who 

believes it necessary to file a claim of 

legal right or privilege concerning 

access to these materials must notify the 

Archivist of the United States in writing 

of the claimed right, privilege, or 

defense within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice. 

ADDRESSES: The Richard Nixon 

Presidential Library and Museum, a 

division of the National Archives, is 

located at 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd., 

Yorba Linda, CA. Researchers must have 

a NARA researcher card, which they 

may obtain when they arrive at the 

Library. Selections from these materials 

will be available at 

www.nixonlibrary.gov. Petitions 

asserting a legal or constitutional right 

or privilege that would prevent or limit 

public access to the materials must be 

sent to the Archivist of the United 

States, National Archives at College 

Park, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, 

Maryland 20740–6001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Wormser, Acting Director, Richard 

Nixon Presidential Library and 

Museum, 714–983–9119. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following materials will be made 

available in accordance with this notice: 

1. Previously restricted textual 

materials. Volume: 91 documents 

consisting of approximately 1,000 pages. 

A number of textual materials 

previously withheld from public access 

have been reviewed for release and/or 

declassified under the systematic 

declassification review provisions of 

Executive Order 13526, the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), or in 

accordance with 36 CFR 1275.56 (Public 

Access regulations). The materials are 

from integral file segments for the 

National Security Council Institutional 

Files; and the Henry A. Kissinger (HAK) 

Office Files. 

Dated: September 7, 2012. 

David Ferriero, 

Archivist of the United States. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22993 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Records Schedules; Availability and 

Request for Comments 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

proposed records schedules; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA) 

publishes notice at least once monthly 

of certain Federal agency requests for 

records disposition authority (records 

schedules). Once approved by NARA, 

records schedules provide mandatory 

instructions on what happens to records 

when no longer needed for current 

Government business. They authorize 

the preservation of records of 

continuing value in the National 

Archives of the United States and the 

destruction, after a specified period, of 

records lacking administrative, legal, 

research, or other value. Notice is 

published for records schedules in 

which agencies propose to destroy 

records not previously authorized for 

disposal or reduce the retention period 

of records already authorized for 

disposal. NARA invites public 

comments on such records schedules, as 

required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a). 

DATES: Requests for copies must be 

received in writing on or before October 

19, 2012. Once the appraisal of the 

records is completed, NARA will send 

a copy of the schedule. NARA staff 

usually prepare appraisal 

memorandums that contain additional 

information concerning the records 

covered by a proposed schedule. These, 

too, may be requested and will be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES