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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

I don't really know to much about the issue but artists should be able to do want with their artwork. Their income that they make should be reported during tax season

depends if they are 26 and live and LA and animate for disney or if they paint a canvas one color and sell it for 50 thousand

No, unless the art in question is being sold for greater than $5,000,000, at which point the anti-money laundering considerations are more important

An individual should never be required to meet same criteria of that of a company/ organization. With that said I’m not knowledgeable in this area.

No, artists are often independent, freelance workers, and therefore they should be free from excessive government regulations.

Yes, everyone should be held to the same standards. No, there should not be any reporting and disclosure requirements for financial firms nor for art firms.

They should be charged taxes on all the money they recive to put atleast 5% of the money the make into the community

I'd say yes since it can show the many different cultures the country has, cave paintings, cultural art, all of that.

Yes, after a certain amount of income they could get but if its below than its optional not mandatory.

No, for the sake of privacy, weak government, checks and balances, federalism, freedom, and capitalism.

I believe this should apply for more expensive art pieces, but not apply for people turning their hobbies into small side hustles.

No there work is there’s the tag the price if somebody wants it then that can pay that much for it otherwise it’s there business

no because they're property is a different category, which would make it easier to handle purchasing prices.

Depending on artist interest, as the the artist should claim it their if it their however if a corporation is using such artist it can be used for public or corporate

Yes, but only for NFT artists. NFTs are securities and should be held to the same regulatory standards as other securities.

This could be a Yes and a No Artists who may be just starting out small may have trouble publishing while it may be a better to apply this to bigger well known artists.

No artists should not be held to the same reporting and disclosure requirements such as hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies when selling their artwork because it makes it 10 times more difficult to be creative and worry about complex legal hurdles that the government requires to sell their artwork.

No, artists are often freelance workers and therefore they shouldn’t have to undergo the same regulations. Big companies have to endure.

Whilst I think both sides pose a great point, artists creativity shouldn't be limited. If it makes it harder for artists to sell their work, no they shouldn't be held to the same standards.

Be lenient on what they do with their stuff, but do not be too heavy on them too. Maybe tax them more, just for fun.

This is a difficult thing. I'm not knowledgeable in this subject, but maybe in certain cases, like if it's a valuable painting, and would be something worth a large sum of money, such as a million dollars. Minor works and commissions that are small, like $100, should not have to deal with those hurdles.

Yes, and stop calling sloppy pieces such as “banana taped to wall” as art, and these should not be selling for millions

They should have to report to the government but not disclose their information to the general public.

Artist should be allowed to have control of their work and how it is sold, transferred and used after creation.