In October of 1973, Robert C. Scull, a New York taxi magnate, and contemporary art collector, sold fifty of his best paintings at Sotheby Park Bernet. He’d been collecting art for over a decade, and he had dozens of pieces from artists that would soon become household names, including Andy Warhol and Robert Rauschenberg.
Famously, Scull sold a Rauschenberg piece entitled Thaw for $85,000. He had only paid the artist $900 for it a handful of years earlier. After the sale, Rauschenberg confronted Scull about the exorbitant profit he had made. A video of the encounter poured fuel on a debate that had been raging for over fifty years. The question at the center of that debate was this: Should artists be compensated for subsequent sales of their artwork? And if so, how?
The Creation of the Artist’s Contract
Two years before Scull’s famous art sale, Seth Siegelaub, a well-known art dealer and writer, worked with the lawyer Robert Projansky to develop a legal way to ensure artists retained some control over their artwork after it had been sold. The result was called The Artist’s Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement, or The Artist’s Contract for short. This eight-page agreement was written in such a way that artist could adopt it wholesale or only use certain, selected parts. It was designed to offer numerous benefits to artists, including:
· A royalty equaling 15% of increases in value for any future sale.
· A consistent record of ownership for all works of art.
· Notice when the artwork was going to be exhibited and the power of veto for any exhibitions.
· The right to borrow the work for two months out of every five years.
· All reproduction rights.
· And more.
If the Artist’s Contract would have been widely adopted by artists and galleries, it would have been a game changer for the art industry. Artists would have retained far more control over their work, and they would have benefited from any future increases in value. Unfortunately, for many people it was a bridge too far. And while some artists have taken advantage of parts of it, few have adopted it indiscriminately. The logistics and demands were simply too much to handle.
Since the creation of the Artist’s Contract, US lawmakers have tried to pass legislation that offers greater protection for artists. But most of it has failed to take root. Over the years, it has seemed as if US-based artists would simply have to settle for less. And the Artist’s Contract appeared to be little more than a pipe dream.
The Advent of Blockchain Technology
But then blockchain technology came on the scene and changed everything. Many of the things required by The Artist’s Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement became genuine possibilities. For example, a secure record of ownership had always been challenging to maintain. But the blockchain is specially designed to keep records secure, transparent, and simple. Likewise, the Artist’s Contract required an overt notice of the contract’s stipulations connected to the artwork. Such can now be easily included in the blockchain ledger.
But that is not all. Artists can also take advantage of blockchain smart contracts to ensure that buyers fulfill every requirement of the Artist’s Contract (as specified by the artist) or the sale will not go through. It is a great way to enforce the agreement, something that was far more difficult before the advent of the blockchain.
Looking to the Future
When the Artist’s Contract was first developed, it was a great idea, but it did not have teeth. More than anything, it needed a way to be put into practice. Blockchain technology is that way. In the coming years and decades, there is a good chance that the Artist’s Contract will become a major topic of conversation. Perhaps it will finally provide a way for artists in the US and abroad to have more control over their legacy and to benefit from their hard work for the rest of their lives.
