Its called "free enterprise" and "democracy".
Selling for profit is legal. Moral? Lot to think about re: Morality.

Ayla, I see he's selling some of your prints on his website & even has one featured on his home page. That's pretty lousy if what you say is true! Did you have any sort of contract with him when you sold him the images?

As eBay is a CALIFORNIA company, I am certain CALIFORNIA law applys.

And here, in California, we have:

THE CALIFORNIA RESALE ROYALTIES ACT California has a statute, Civil Code section 986, that provides the creator of “fine art” the right to receive a royalty upon the resale of his or her creations

That's right! If you buy my art, and turn around and resell it, you owe me, the artist, a commission!

Who else knew about that?

Ayla Z - sounds like it's a good time to find a lawyer, if someone is really using your copyrighted materials without permission or is exceeding his scope of use and/or physically has possession of your property. Good luck.

Thank you, rwright@adnetsol.com, for the information about the THE CALIFORNIA RESALE ROYALTIES ACT. I did a quick Google search and found more about it. You're right--all resales of artwork on eBay would be covered by this statute. The one clause which would eliminate 90% of eBay art transactions, however, is this:

"Among the limitations is that the statute does not apply to any resales (including any sales made as part of any exchange of other property) where the gross resale price is less than $1,000.00."

Did I interpret that correctly? (I'm just an artist, not a lawyer.)
--Zia

I speak as a purchaser, not an artist. I have bought 20 or so original works on eBay in the last 6 months... a few newly created works, the others all from earlier centuries. Yes, I have resold perhaps 3 or 4. Not to make a profit, although it did happen once, but to move them on as I didn't care for them once they arrived. As a collector, I own perhaps 100 works. While I would never ever reproduce a work under any circumstances, I feel they are my property now and do sell or trade them.

I have seen the agreement that must be signed by the purchaser that - among other provisos - requires the purchaser to notify the artist or his heirs if the work is sold and the amount of the sale price, thus guaranteeing the artist or his heirs a share of any profit realized in the event the work appreciated in value.

I think for the most part it is acceptable to resale the work for a profit, and most artists don't mind. They will ussually raise their prices and possibly take some hints from the auction that sold it at a higher price. But I do believe that California has a law that requires that artists be paid for artwork reselling at a higher price. But I think that only applies to work over a certain price. So if you are selling work from a California artist, you might want to check up on the law.

Many points raised by others beside the very the kind-hearted OP.

"Droite de suite" could result in investor-buyers focussing even more on the long dead. If a seller sells at a loss, as usually happens with single owner art, the loss will be aggravated by having to share the proceeds. Moneyspinning artists and their heirs will make even more money and the obscure starving artists will hardly get anything, as the collection costs will be great and the prices small.
It might be an idea to refuse gifts of contemporary art if you are going to be saddled with unsought-for obligations and red tape.

"The artist's say-so".
A well-known Australian/Scottish artist said that the example of his work I had could not have been genuine because thirty years previously he had been told by the warden of an exhibiting society that it had been burned for non-collection. It had been given to a church and mouldered in the basement for 30 years until being cleared out to the dealer I bought it from. It was unsaleable by me because the artist has the final say on authenticity while he is alive. I sold it for £100 to another dealer who sold it on to a collector who contacted the artist, who proceeded to change his mind. So the collector now has a valuable asset, with a letter authenticating it.

Profit sharing
If the original poster were to give a portion of profits to the artist's whose work she sells that would be very nice, but the profits might not arrive.

Painting over another's work.
Sometimes it is the arrogant overpainter whose work is removed when fashion changes and the despised underpainting takes precedence.
I have noticed a lot of art students are reusing, "appropriating", the work of others for their "installations",: carboot "Phlox in a Dresden vase", " Our Puppies", and "Loch Lomond, Sunset, 1965" get "recontextualised". Years from now these student fabrications might be eagerly dismantled to liberate the amateur pictures trapped within which will have become period pieces.