We recently got an email via Artists UK Dotnet from a French lady complaining about Château des Réaux (see other plentiful previous posts and comments on Château des Réaux !).  It runs as follows:-

Désolée de répondre en français! Je suis également une “victime” de Château des Réaux. Je ne conteste pas le prix bas qui a été proposé, puisque je l’ai accepté. Cependant il était prévu une exposition au château des Réaux et dans d’autres lieux similaires en échange de l’abandon des droits annexes. Puisque l’exposition n’a pas eu lieu, ne peut-on contester les droits annexes ?

This translates into English for our non-French speakers as follows -

Sorry to reply in French! I am also a “victim” of Chateau des Reaux. I do not deny the low price that has been proposed, since I have accepted it. However, it was anticipated that there would be exposure at the Chateau des Reaux and other similar places in exchange for the abandonment of the ancillary rights. Since this exposure has not occurred, can we challenge the ancillary rights?

Hmmm, I think the answer is probably not.  The whole point of the controversy over this “offer” was that the artist signs away any right to be associated with their original artwork for what, to most artists, is considered a pitance.  Since, by the terms of their contract, Château des Réaux do not seem obliged to credit the artist at all, I’m not quite sure what kind of exposure at Château des Réaux or elsewhere would be of benefit to the artist anyway.  Wasn’t the final verdict on Château des Réaux something along the lines of “avoid Château des Réaux unless you are totally desperate to sell a painting” or were we misreading the range of comments we received?

Have you seen anything like this before!  WOW!