There is some panic currently in the convention/collector scene in California. It has to do with Assembly Bill No. 1570, which was signed into law on September 9. According to this article…
The law in question goes by the name "AB-1570 Collectibles: sale of autographed memorabilia," and governs the sales of any autographed items. The law supersedes existing California law, which had previously only been directed at sports memorabilia. The law requires that any autographed item sold for more than $5 must include a certificate of authenticity including information about the dealer, where and how the item was signed, and the name and address of any third party from whom it was purchased. The law was undoubtedly aimed at shutting down forgery mills, but it was written so broadly that it will make things a lot harder for anyone dealing in autographed goods.
My first thought is that this law will not shut down forgery mills. It will just put them to work creating phony certificates of authenticity. I've seen a lot of them…and also COAs where someone who has no expertise or knowledge if something is forged vows that it's legit. A friend of mine once purchased a limited edition Salvador Dali bronze statue. It came with a certificate of authenticity and I got to wondering: What kind of forger could whip up a bogus bronze Dali statue but couldn't replicate a slip of paper you could copy at Kinko's?
My second thoughts are a whole bunch of questions, starting with this: The law is to regulate dealers and it defines one as…
…a person who is principally in the business of selling or offering for sale collectibles in or from this state, exclusively or nonexclusively, or a person who by his or her occupation holds himself or herself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to collectibles, or to whom that knowledge or skill may be attributed by his or her employment of an agent or other intermediary that by his or her occupation holds himself or herself out as having that knowledge or skill.
Okay, so if I sell alleged autographs on eBay, I don't need to mess with COAs just so long as I can argue that selling such items is not my main source of income and I don't claim to be sure that whatever I'm selling is genuine. This would seem to be a loophole about the size of the Louisiana Purchase.
So just how will this work? This article, which is also against the law, says…
Consider bookstores that do a lot of author events. Let's imagine that Neil Gaiman does one of his typical massive booksignings in February for his forthcoming book, Norse Gods. Say 1000 people show up and buy books at $25.95. The bookstore either has to issue 1000 COA, or risk being sued for $25.95 x 1000 x 10, plus attorney's fees. Call it $300,000.
The bill defines a "collectible" as an autographed item sold by a "dealer" to a consumer for five dollars or more. Okay, if the book lists for $25.95 and they sell it unsigned, they don't need to issue a COA. They also won't need one ten years from now if they sell it for $300 as a First Edition, even though it will still be a "collectible," just so long as it's a non-autographed collectible.
If Neil signs it and it sells for $25.95, do they need to issue a COA? When nothing is being charged for the autograph? Let's say ten years from now, unsigned First Editions are indeed selling for $300. Let's say I'm a dealer and I have one allegedly signed by Neil but I have no COA. Can I sell that for $300? Can I sell it for $200? Can I sell it for any price if I have the buyer sign that I have made no representation as to the authenticity of the autograph?
Okay, let's switch. Let's say I'm a customer and I go in and buy one the day Neil is signing real autographs on a whole crate of copies. Let's say that years later, I decide I can get a hundred bucks for it so I offer it on eBay. I don't need a COA since I'm not a dealer. A dealer sees my listing and because of his expertise, recognizes it as authentic and thinks it might be a good investment for him because he can sell it for $300. But he can't because he'll have no COA to accompany that sale. I can only sell to someone who has no expertise and that person can resell it as long as they don't claim to have expertise. Is this a good way to cut down on the sale of phony collectibles?
What if a dealer wants to sell a Neil Gaiman autograph he obtained three years ago? Or for that matter, a rare first edition of some H.G. Wells book signed by the author? Seems to me this law is placing all sorts of burdens on professional autograph sellers and none on people who do it part-time. It also seems to me the law is unclear.
Apparently, rules such as this were already in place regarding sports memorabilia and this new law extends them to anything that's autographed. Has it eliminated fake autographs on baseballs and football helmets? I don't know. I'm just asking.
I really don't have any direct self-interest in any of this. I don't sell my autograph and even if I did, the law exempts the signer. Still, it might inhibit the market for some autographs, particularly those of people whose signatures are not likely to soar a lot in value. A dealer who arranges a signing with William Shatner might figure Shatner's signature will someday be worth a thousand bucks. Many of that dealer's sales will be to investors who think the same thing. The COA doesn't seem like too much trouble to go to in those instances and in fact, there are some dealers who already arrange for them on that kind of sale.
But the part of the autograph market that I kind of like is the smaller sale, the one from an actor or author or someone who is genuinely making their living signing their name for $20 a pop. At autograph shows and conventions, you see a lot of them: Folks who worked on a popular TV series years ago. The residuals have long since run out. They can now make a little money (and get a little ego boost) going to conventions, meeting fans they didn't know they had and signing for them.
Again, we're talking about $20 autographs that might never be sold by dealers and might never escalate much in value. Is this new law going to harm that business?
I'm thinking now of an actor friend of mine — an older man who did not have much savings and did not have much income. What income he had came from going to autograph shows and signing photos of himself for twenty bucks each. At one show — and I was there when this happened — a dealer approached him and offered to buy fifty photos if he could get them for ten bucks apiece. The actor agreed, signed his name fifty times and made a much-needed $500 so he was happy. The dealer later sold the photos for $20-$30 each so he was happy. Presumably, the buyers were happy.
Would this new law have messed with that arrangement? Made it less likely to happen? If so, it's probably a bad law. If not…well, I still have the feeling we're going to see just as many fake autographs, now accompanied by more fake certificates of authenticity. And the fact that no one seems to be sure how things will work…that alone suggests it's a bad law. I'd love to hear why it isn't.