Talk:Droit de suite

Australian Section

So I'm going to take this out, for the following reasons: 1) It clearly doesn't fit under the heading 'United States'.

'"droit de suite" is not a exclusively US legal concept . Surely this would be better moved to an Australian heading rather than removed ? 'Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

2) Advice from the Australian Solicitor General about the constitutional validity of proposed Australian legislation does not 'lend support to' the view that different legislation is inconsistent with a different constitution.

It was publicly stated by senior officers of the relevant public service department, when giving evidence to the parliamentary standing committee on the environment and the arts (feb 2009) that the scheme is not retrospective in aplication because of Solicitor General advice that retrospective application ran real risk of a adverse (I.e compensation) ruling by the high court 'Pedestrian1957 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3) 'Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The term 'unjust enrichment' does not appear in the Australian Constitution, and I can't see any conceivable connection between s 52 and resale royalties for artists. Possibly this should have been a reference to s 51(xxxi), which implicitly prohibits acquisitions of property otherwise than on just terms. If so, it shouldn't be put back in unless it is explained in at least some detail, especially because it doesn't seem to me like it could be based on any orthodox interpretation of s 51(xxxi).

4) No explanation is given for why 'the opt-out rather than opt-in' nature of the Act would be inconsistent with it being part of the Copyright Act. Given that the conclusion is supposedly that the legislation needs to be separate from the Copyright Act, I can only imagine that it's because the opt-out version is considered taxation whereas the opt-in version would not be (thus the former would need to deal only with taxation under s 55). But I'm pretty much guessing. So again, I don't think this should go back without being explained.

As best as I understand the constitutional/legal situation you are correct- 'opt-in' is not tax like, 'opt-out' is too ambiguous for the copyright act , and compulsory usage is clearly a mandated duty . Hypothecated taxes are very unpopular . Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Act (which is actually called the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act 2009) may be worthy of some discussion in this article, but I think it should be based on details of how the scheme operates rather than speculations about the constitutional validity of a particular draft of the Bill. The relevance that the current information would have to the droit de suite, even if it were accurate, is highly questionable. So until someone feels like adding more useful Australian information, I think it's best to just take it out.

The point I would like to emphasize is that there is no global shared understanding of what 'droite de suite', in practice, actually means - surely this is a problem for a encyclopedia entry?Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Pedestrian1957 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)