In accordance with Article 5 and Article 6 of the 2020 Agreement Model, the collector/seller is responsible for ensuring that subsequent purchasers (1) are informed of the agreement, (2) ratify it and (3) are bound by its terms, including the donation and execution of a transfer contract within 30 days of the sale. This raises questions about the doctrine of treaty practice, according to which only the contracting parties can be bound by its contractual terms. Could the artist sue a third-party buyer who did not sign or report the contract prior to the acquisition of the work? In the European Union, the 2001/84/EC („Directive“) directive regulates resale costs for artists in the Member States and sets thresholds for amounts due to live artists up to 70 years after their death, based on the value of their works of art. [2] The directive aims to „ensure that creators of graphic and plastic works of art participate in the economic success of their original works of art.“ [3] In the United States, despite various efforts by states and federal officials and many organizations such as The Royalties for Artists Coalition, there is no significant resale fee law. One of the federal`s recent efforts was a bill introduced in 2018 before the 115th Congress under the name of the American Royalties Too („ART“) Act, but no progress has been made since then. [4] In the same year, the California Resale Royalty Act („CRRA“) of 1977[5] was sold almost unconstitutionally by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because it was anticipated by federal law under copyright law of 1976. [6] The CRRA applies only to the sale of a small number of works of art sold between January 1, 1977 and January 1, 1978. In June 2020, the non-profit organization KADIST, based in San Francisco and Paris, released a new model agreement allowing artists and collectors to ensure that a portion of the proceeds from the resale of their artworks benefits a charity they support. Recalls the 1971 Artist`s Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement designed by artist Seth Siegelaub and lawyer Robert Projansky[1] and designed by a group of artists, Lawyers and scholars prepared for 2020 „the initial transfer agreement of works of art, with resale in favor of a charitable organization“ („the 2020 Model Agreement“) puts a charitable turn on the typical secondary market contracts for the sale of art.

In addition, collectors are bound by this contract, but they or subsequent purchasers may refuse to comply with the terms, which could lead to costly litigation if the artist or non-profit organization wishes to follow this path. What happens if the second buyer does not agree with the mission of the elected charity? Can the buyer choose another non-profit organization? Can we make a donation? Who can enforce the treaty? These questions can be answered under U.S. contract law, which varies from state to state. x is the value of the artwork in the sense of the contract is the sale price on the secondary market. In the absence of public legislation, U.S.-based artists had to rely on the willingness of collectors to privately agree on the payment of a resale license, the amount of which could be heavily negotiated. In 1971, conceptual artist and art dealer Seth Sielaub worked with New York lawyer Robert Projansky to develop a model agreement known as the Artist`s Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement, which should be both a work of art and a legal document to inspire others („the 1971 Model Agreement“).