Ethical question

[TrogL]

Poll question: Ethical question

My partner has a painting in a gallery. He has agreed to pay 50% commission if it sells from the gallery.

He's found a buyer outside the gallery on his own based upon description alone. He wants to pull the picture out of the gallery for the day for this person to see it and possibly buy, saving the commission.

All legalaties aside, personally I think he should take the person to the gallery and pony up.

[jpgray]

1. If he didn't use the gallery to make the sale, why pay the 50%? (nt)

[democracyindanger]

5. Ding ding ding

The agreement is contingent on the gallery selling it. They didn't, so there's nothing unethical about pulling the painting and selling it himself.

[Maine-ah]

2. is there any kind of contract with the gallery?

[petronius]

3. Did he agree to a set time period with the gallery?

If so, then I think he needs to honor that commitment, and either send the potential buyer to the gallery or have them wait and take their chances. If there is no agreed-upon time limit for gallery display, then I'd say he can withdraw the picture at any time - if he found the buyer, and the buyer had zero interaction with the gallery, then the picture did not "sell from the gallery."

[mcscajun]

6. I have to agree with this.

The gallery has set aside space to display this that could be used for other artists willing to abide by their agreements.

Of course, if the agreement with the gallery is so wide open as to allow for this temporary removal, and he's willing to risk not being able to show with that particular gallery again, then he can do as he like.

[Guaranteed]

8. Good point.

Maybe you're right.

[Floogeldy]

4. Depends on the agreement

You typed: "He has agreed to pay 50% commission if it sells from the gallery." Strictly construing these words, he will not owe a commission, since, I assume, the buyer hasn't even appeared at the gallery to view the painting.

Does the gallery consider the agreement for the sale of the painting exclusive to the gallery?

How much money are we talking about here? Enough to generate a lawsuit?

[Guaranteed]

7. So, he painted it, right?

Sorry, I think I got confused for a second.

So, he painted it and has it in someone else's gallery.

I say, if he finds the buyer with his own resources, and the person never saw it in the gallery, he shouldn't pay the commission.

[Squeech]

9. Enlightened self-interest

Artists need galleries to show-- and promote-- their work. But it goes both ways: galleries can't just rely on the same old same old, but need to discover new artists and bring them to the art market. Obviously some galleries are better at this than others.

I would think that, in the absence of contract language forbidding it, your partner is within his rights to withdraw the painting and sell it on his own. But if he wants to develop an ongoing, mutually beneficial relationship with this gallery, he would do much better to bring the buyer to the gallery. That shows the gallery owner: (1) your partner is serious about wanting to work with this gallery, and (2) your partner is serious about promoting his own work, which will also bring walk-in traffic to whatever gallery he's showing in. If the gallery owner has the brains God gave little green apples, he'll see this as an extremely good thing, and he ought to figure it'd be worth his while to expend some extra energy on your partner's behalf.

If your partner doesn't think this gallery is any good, then he can pull the painting and keep the money. But there's a risk that, not only will he never be invited to that gallery again, he'll also get a reputation as a sleaze. Unless he has reason to believe that this gallery is worthless, he should consider that commission to be an investment in his career. Hopefully it'll be a good one.

Maybe that's really naive thinking-- certainly it has seldom worked out in my artistic life, which has been in music, that domain where no good deed goes unpunished. But I still think there's such thing as karma for artists.