Should artists be held to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies when selling their artwork?

Yes

This should be implemented for art exceeding a limit, like $10,000. It should not be applied to small or minor works.

Yes, but only if the regulations are simple and fair without an undo reporting burden on the artist.

Yes, for large volume traders of artwork or high-earning artists where a specific earned income from the works is stated such as $1 million plus.

It's their artwork so they should be able to do whatever they want with it and sell it however they want.

While some level of reporting and disclosure is important to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation, it should be tailored to the specific context of the art world rather than being identical to the requirements for hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies.

They should have some form of regulation for reporting and disclosing because artwork is used as a means of money laundering.

They shouldn't be held to the same reporting and disclosure but they should have some form of accountability.

This should be implemented for art exceeding a limit but it should not be applied to minor works of art.

Private artist's shouldn't have to follow the regulations, but more public, copyrighted art companies should.

Artist should be held to reporting and disclosure requirements when selling their artwork, but not the same requirements hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies when selling artwork. That is because it would make it much harder for artist to be able to sell their artwork if it was to the same requirements.

Yes, but place their artwork on a sliding scale of reporting (Only report for Single pieces valued at $40,000 or Collections valued at $250,000)

if they are doing business under a state or local charter, then they should have the same requirements as any other chartered business.

it should be tailored to the specific context of the art world rather than being identical to the requirements for hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies

Hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies should be held to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as artists.

yes, to some extent art work should have some disclosures because often times it could be a cover up for illegal activity

Small businesses should not because in the grand scheme of things it's not really a big deal with them but bigger artists should be held to certain standards.

Yes, but if the art piece is selling for a large amount of money because of the tax cuts that can come from it when selling to a wealthy person who donated it to gain a tax cut.

If an artist is selling their work at a fair price, they should be allowed to operate like a small shop.

True artists should not be forced into those requirements, but obvious examples of money laundering should be prosecuted.

Yes, within the past few years there's been a sharp uprise in AI "art" which is a type of fraud, and the possibility of accidentally supporting someone who uses it increases if not done carefully.

Depending on what kind of art work it is. If the artwork doesn't meet the requirements then it should be sold like that.

No, it puts to much strain on independent artists and due to the subjective value of art, there's no suitable amount for which it should be considered a security

No, but only if the hedge funds, mutual funds, and public corporations ask permission from the artist.

I don't think so because the artists don't have the same presentation with the mutual funds its government properties.

YEA THEY SHOUDL. Ive seen more breathe taking artwork on the web for less then ive seen them in art shows. now days artwork is just honestly dumb. i seen a man draw a line and people where cheering for him.

An artwork ius a personal belonging not an investment.Anything can be considered anm investment assuming an inflating economy. My toothbrush would be an investment by that stance. I stand diferenty on this subjkect reguaroding NFT because while some xcondier them, artwork i conmsider them a dfigital asset and investment wich should be taxed acoridiungly.

No, artists generally should not be subject to the same extensive reporting and disclosure requirements as financial entities like hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies when selling artwork, as the nature of art as a subjective, expressive commodity and the dynamics of the art market differ fundamentally from financial markets. Applying such regulations to artists would be impractical, potentially stifle creativity, and fail to address the unique challenges of the art market, which is often opaque and lacks sufficient transparency and anti-money laundering (AML) oversight.
Reasons…  Read more why artists should not be held to the same standards:
Nature of the Commodity:
.
Artwork is a subjective and expressive commodity, making its valuation based on factors beyond financial metrics, such as social and intrinsic value.
Market Dynamics:
.
The art market is characterized by opacity and a lack of transparency, which regulators aim to combat with financial disclosure requirements. Imposing complex financial reporting on individual artists would not effectively increase transparency or address the structural issues within the art market.
Stifling Creativity:
.
Such stringent regulations could inhibit the artistic process and expression, as the primary focus for artists is creation, not financial reporting.
Practicality and Resources:
.
Artists typically do not have the resources, expertise, or legal teams required to handle complex financial disclosures, which are designed for large financial institutions and publicly traded companies.
Focus on the Art Market Infrastructure:
.
Instead of regulating artists directly, efforts should focus on enhancing transparency and AML compliance within the broader art market infrastructure, such as through industry consortiums and blockchain technologies, to track ownership and sales history.
Current challenges and potential solutions in the art market:
Lack of Transparency:
The art market has a significant lack of transparency, which is a major concern for i

The hedge funds and mutual funds, etc. should be held to less of a reporting / disclosure standard so long as fraud/theft/etc. is still illegal and policed.

Artists shouldn’t be held to the same financial reporting standards as hedge funds or public companies, but high-value sales should have some transparency to prevent fraud.

I don't think that they should be required or held to do something specific. I think it is their property to decide what they want to do with it. Not anyone else's, unless they sell it

Artists should not be held to the same financial disclosure standards as hedge funds unless their work is being traded as a financial asset. Most artists live outside the wealth their work eventually commands—often gaining fame and value only after death. Regulation should protect against exploitation and laundering, not burden living creators with corporate bureaucracy. Let art remain expression, not just investment.

No, because I feel that beginning artists shouldn't be held to the same standard as multi billionaire hedge fun owners.

Artists should be allowed to make and sell what they want with certain safety limitations, and only be required to disclose if there are major safety concerns and/or legal issues.

Artists should have the right to protect themselves and their business but should be transparent to their buyers if necessary and for legal reasons

Putting aside that the order of magnitude in profit is nowhere near the same. What's that supposed to achieve other than making it more harder for artists to live from their work?

Yes, Some artists may include styles, characters, and other such uniquities, which shouldn't be given away. Eg: a poster of the artist's series including the characters of the series, the art may belong to the buyer, but the character remains the artists'

This question assumes a complex financial system that we do not have. All citizens and entities are subject to the same simple requirement: to give a 10% tithe on all "increase" (profit). The sale of artwork is an increase. The reporting is simple and universal for all.

No. The purchaser determines the value of art. Whatever someone is willing to pay is the value. Artists value their time differently, and as independent workers, they have the right to set their value as they see fit. If an artist is unable to sell their art, then I believe that's the market telling them they're overvaluing their work.

No, but there should be some controls in place to prevent abuse such as tax avoidance and money laundering

No, unless the art is sold as an investment at a high price where financial accountability is justifiable.

NO... artists should not be held to the same disclosure requirements as hedge funds or public companies. However, institutional actors in the art market—especially those facilitating high-value or opaque transactions—should be subject to tailored transparency laws that protect the integrity of both the financial system and cultural expression.

Money should not exist. If artists can convince others to trade goods and/or services of interest to them in return for their art, then there should be no restraint on that.

Yes, if artists are going to create a hierarchical structure for art where only the wealthy can afford their art, they should be forced to disclose

No, artists shouldn’t be regulated like hedge funds or corporations. But for very high-value sales, some basic transparency rules (like reporting buyer identity and price) can help prevent financial crimes without limiting creativity or small businesses.

Are the hedge and mutual funds or public companies held to much? Today’s market makes it seem like they get away with just about anything.

I think selling Art is a form of money laundering, which the rich do all the time. Poor should be able to as well

No, but Sotheby's and private collectors who use these pieces to shift asset values need to be harassed.

Only if what they're doing is legal, mostly because of scammers and con-artists trying to launder money through buying/selling art pieces at ridiculous prices.

This is a slippery slope, what counts as art? Many view high-end cars as art and an investment. Instead, maybe regulate the transactions themselves to limit fraud, implimenting a gains tax that can not be side stepped using current loopholes or something.

No, Artists are not held to the same value. Most times they sell their work for way less than market value because of AI.

If art looks beautiful and have meaning, artists (who work hard on their projects) can have equal pay compared to their business counterparts.

No, artists can choose to be transparent and they are more likely to attract new clients. If not, then they risk losing clients because they can't trust a scam artist.

Yes, the demand should be the same for everyone. Notwithstanding, this demands should be reduced. The sale of something is not government's business.

No, but artists should be required to provide a level of proof of authenticity for buyers piece of mind

Artist themselves should not be required to do this; however massive organizations who hoard and steal cultural arts and pieces should be held to the same standard.

Only if the artwork is being sold at investment-level prices or through financial institutions—everyday creators and independent artists shouldn’t face unnecessary regulation

We all know that this has been a vector for Uber wealthy money laundering for a long time. No if regular common people can do the same thing, yes if we can't.

I don't think the government should be able to interfere with personal artist work, but if the painting's worth a lot like a million than maybe.

Somtimes artwork is bought by elites to launder money & the artwork that is normally bought has no meaning what so ever, son it should be regulated to a certain extent & should be invistgated if the artwork exceeds a certain limit of pricing. Artwork that has no meaning to the public eye should be invistgated if bought by wealthy individuals that have a sus background.

Yes, but only if the artist is selling art as their only source of income, and if the legal hurdles are reduced.

They slave their talent to create it, they deserve every penny, as they use a talent they've built and wasn't trained on by government funded situations.

No, artist already struggle enough to make a living. Especially since AI is attempting to replace them.

Generally skeptical of new regulations but supportive of transparency if linked to anti-money laundering)

There should be some protects with art but mainly in the case of people trying to sell AI as their own work. Real artists should be able to sell their work and not have to jump through legal hurdles to do so.

No, it's their work and if they need a disclosure agreement that should be used to working on a series with a studio

Neither however if it is an investment they should sell at any price but disclosing the price should be required

No, most art is not bought as a security but because the person wants the art itself for itself, and that's the way it should be. Thus it should be treated legally as a product or service rather than an investment.

No, art is meant to be seen as a way of expression, and it could harm their profits far more than it already is.

It isn’t fair especially when most artists are barely able to earn any sort of funds for their work, while companies make more than they need.

maybe some companies should try selling more artwork cause it's worth lots of money if you try to make your own art

While transparency and investor protection are important in all markets, the art market's unique characteristics and the nature of artist-buyer transactions make strict financial regulations less suitable.

Yea I don't really know I would say keep doing your thing and if it gets bad then they should get involved

AI is stealing many artists/aspiring artists work. Artist should have freedom to be able to draw without anyone interfering.

No cause artists don't make any money anyway and AI slops gonna put them out of a job within the next 10 years anyway

No, if they made the artwork and sold it on their own, then they are entitled to the entire compensation

It should depend on the case and seller in question, yes if they are known for fraudulent transactions but in most cases no, small business owners make far less money than large corporations and are less likely to resort to corruption.

Artwork is not comparable to these things, and I don't believe it is appropriate to hold artists to these standards

Art is art. It shouldn’t be treated like a stock. But if someone is trying to sell it like a stock, that’s where regulation should kick in.

Depends; if we are talking about the average street artist that is at your local FIRST FRIDAY event then no, but if we are talking about the other tier of 'art'
like rich ppl using a Monet or Picasso or Rodan for example to avoid taxes (i e art is personal property, but a monet or a Banxie trades as 'micro shares' on trading platforms so it should be held to the same reporting and disclosure. GENERAL RULE; IF YOU BOUGHT AND OWNED THE PIECE BEFORE THE ARTIST WAS SUPER FAMOUS AND IS STILL ALIVE THEN NO-ART HAS AN APPRECIATION IN VALUE. IF THE ART IS LONG SINCE FAMOUS AND THE ARTIST LONG DEAD OR A MUSEUM IS INTERESTED THAN YES REPORT AND DISCLOSE

I believe its the buyers choice whether they want to risk buying this that are fraud as many apps online have many things people sell online that are different to what they were shown.

Yes, because artists kind of have their own company, which is them, they are investing in themselves and are making a profit, so it would only be fair to do this.

If someone is willing to pay the price that is set, that is the value of the artwork. Cases of potential fraud should be investigated but blanket legislation inhibits the rights of two willing parties

Yes, but the funds should be fair as to their artwork. If it is a smaller piece verses a larger piece, the prices should reflect this difference

Yes - The Person Selling Artworks have a 'Cost' of Obtaining/Creating the Artwork. The Difference between that Cost and the Selling Price should be treated as Taxable Income.

As an Artist myself. I think the hard work put into the artwork artist make on a daily basis to their art should be protected a bit more. Not too much but just a bit more.

If they have a building then yes, but if there just selling their art freely, they shouldn't have to deal with these funds.

No, under certain circumstances of course. As an artist who is making well above 6 figures a year should be held to those requirements versus some low profile artist who doesn't even break 20k in a year. And to tackle fraud, in a sense you get what you pay for

The ability to decreases fraud work is commendable however, I feel that the Legal hurdles for people to actually get their artwork out is a big issue that can discourage their creativity.

small artists should not have this applied to but I can see it being applied to bigger artists with big names

No, everyday artists and creators should not face burdensome regulations, but high-value art transactions used for investment purposes should be subject to reasonable transparency measures to prevent money laundering and fraud.