"We liked this variation because it addresses some of the criticisms of the Siegelaub-Projansky contract (that only successful artists benefit from its use), and that it redistributes wealth to produce social good ...."

More on Kadist's new resale royalty contract, mentioned earlier here.

If we assume the problem a resale royalty is meant to address is the unfairness to the artist that results when a work significantly increases in value from its first sale ... I'm not sure how this solves that problem. This feels more like a tax on the sale proceeds, with the taxes earmarked for charity (albeit one the artist gets to designate). It's like a consolation prize: the artist herself doesn't get to share in the increase in value, but a charity she likes does. If you thought someone owed you $1,000 (and I think that's part of the case for resale royalties: that the artist has a moral claim to a share of the proceeds her work generates) and they said they wouldn't pay it to you but would instead give it to a charity of your choice, is that the same thing? Would that make you whole? I think you'd feel it was better than nothing, but, depending on how strong your connection to the charity is, not quite justice.