추급권(droit de suite)의 현대적 의미와 한국의 추급권 도입의 문제점

초록

The fundamental purpose of the resale royalty right system is to achieve a form of social justice by returning a certain percentage of the profits generated from the sale of their works to struggling and impoverished creators and their descendants, even if only belatedly. As recently as the 19th and early 20th centuries, many artists received little recognition during their lifetime, only to gain recognition after their deaths, resulting in resale prices exceeding their initial sales. However, in contemporary society, thanks to the advancement of mass media and information and communication technology (IT), artists who garner public and art market attention often achieve this while still alive. Unfortunately, the current art market trends show that works by artists who achieved fame and commanded high prices during their lifetimes continue to be sold at high prices and frequently after their deaths. In other words, the real benefits of resale royalty right today often go to artists who have already achieved fame and wealth or their descendants. For artists who haven't achieved fame or wealth or their descendants, even if they do receive the benefits, they are largely meaningless. In this reality, it is questionable whether the resale royalty right truly retains the same significance it once did. Today, the resale royalty right actually reduces artists' initial sales revenue, with most of the proceeds being concentrated in the hands of a small number of top artists or their heirs. In other words, the resale royalty right today has lost much of its original purpose compared to the past. Furthermore, considering the nature of the contemporary global art trade, the distortions and imbalances in the art market that arise between countries that have adopted the resale royalty right system and those that have not remain a major challenge for art market policy. Although the Korea-EU FTA served as a catalyst, Korea decided to introduce the right of resale. The Korean art market only began to grow in the 21st century, and compared to the past, it has achieved a certain degree of transaction volume, diversification, and internationalization in distribution. However, compared to advanced art markets in Europe and the United States, which have long established foundations, the Korean art market remains weak in terms of size and foundation. Given this situation, concerns are growing about the stability of the resale royalty right system. For the sustained and stable development of the art market, transparency in art transactions must be maintained. In this regard, the introduction of a resale royalty right system can contribute to this transparency to some extent. However, hastily implementing a resale royalty right system when the market's foundations are still weak could actually slow or distort the growth of the Korean art market. Therefore, even if a resale royalty right system is necessary, it must be implemented with extreme caution, following meticulous preparation, as it would fundamentally alter the very fabric of the Korean art market. From this perspective, it's true that the declaration system for the art service providers (Article 18 of the Act) is a burden on relevant businesses. Even if this declaration obligation is intended to ensure transparency in art transactions and secure information on art distribution, the law itself needs to be revised to ensure concise procedures and requirements and to exclude the review authority of local government heads. The right of a dedicated agency to request information from art service providers (Article 26) related to art transactions is also problematic. In Korea, the art market is far weaker than the European art market, which has developed steadily and systematically over a long period of time. Granting this information-gathering authority to a dedicated agency would only be a significant burden. Conversely, we should note that in France, the originator of the resale royalty right, art market operators are now required to provide transaction-related information. Rather, proactive policies are needed to encourage proactive information provision by offering incentives, such as tax benefits, to those involved in the art trade.

키워드