American Royalties Too Act of 2025
HB4017, titled the American Royalties Too Act of 2025, would create a federal resale royalty right for visual artists. The bill adds a new section to the Copyright Act providing that when a work of visual art is commercially resold through an art market professional for $5,000 or more, the artist is entitled to a royalty equal to 5 percent of the sale price, capped at $50,000 and adjusted for inflation. The royalty would apply for the full copyright term and would be collected by designated visual artists’ collecting societies, which would then distribute payments to living artists or, after death, to heirs under a detailed succession scheme.
The bill also sets out administration, enforcement, and eligibility rules. It requires art market professionals to remit royalties within 90 days of final payment, authorizes lawsuits for nonpayment or failure to distribute, bars waiver or transfer of the royalty right, and directs the Register of Copyrights to designate collecting societies and issue regulations. If artists or heirs cannot be located, royalties would be held in escrow and eventually transferred to the Copyright Office for artist-support programs and educational initiatives. The bill further exempts works of visual art from the copyright notice requirements in section 401 and requires the Copyright Office to study implementation within five years of enactment.
If enacted, the bill would significantly change federal copyright law by creating a new statutory resale royalty for visual art in the United States. It would affect artists, heirs, galleries, auction houses, dealers, and other art market professionals, while also giving the Copyright Office a new regulatory and oversight role. The bill is structured as a copyright amendment rather than a tax or consumer-protection measure, and it would take effect one year after enactment.
The available context shows little recorded debate or voting activity: the bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and no votes or committee transcripts are provided. Based on the text, the measure appears designed to strengthen artists’ economic rights and align U.S. law more closely with resale-royalty systems used in some other countries. Because there is no recorded discussion in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the bill’s framing suggests support from proponents of visual artists’ rights and likely scrutiny from art-market stakeholders who would bear the collection and payment obligations.
The main point of contention is likely the mandatory resale royalty itself, especially the 5 percent payment on qualifying secondary-market sales and the administrative burden placed on art market professionals and collecting societies. Another likely issue is the bill’s cross-border eligibility rules, the treatment of unclaimed royalties, and the federal preemption-like effect of creating a new national resale right in an area where the United States has historically not imposed a broad artist resale royalty. The bill also raises practical questions about enforcement, valuation, and how collecting societies would be selected and monitored.
The bill would amend title 17 of the U.S. Code by adding a new section 106B establishing a federal resale royalty right for works of visual art, revising section 401 to exclude visual art from copyright notice requirements, and updating the chapter 1 table of sections. It would create new obligations for art market professionals to calculate, collect, and remit royalties, and it would authorize the Copyright Office to regulate collecting societies, oversee administration, and conduct a post-enactment study. The measure would directly affect visual artists, their heirs, galleries, auction houses, dealers, and collecting societies, while creating new federal remedies and enforcement mechanisms for unpaid royalties.
The provided record contains no committee transcript and no votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. From the bill text itself, the measure is clearly pro-artist and intended to expand creators’ economic rights, suggesting supportive sentiment among advocates for visual artists and copyright reform. At the same time, the absence of recorded debate leaves open likely concerns from the art market about compliance costs, transaction complexity, and the effect on resale activity.
The most likely contention is over whether the federal government should impose a mandatory resale royalty on secondary sales of visual art, particularly the 5 percent rate and the $5,000 threshold. Art market professionals may object to the administrative and reporting duties, the role of collecting societies, and the potential litigation exposure for nonpayment. Additional points of dispute include the inheritance rules for the royalty, the treatment of unclaimed funds, the eligibility limits tied to nationality or place of creation, and whether creating a new federal resale right is the best way to support artists.