THE EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE OF THE ART MARKET: LIABILITY, RESALE ROYALTIES, AUTHENTICATION CHALLENGES, AND REGULATORY REFORMS IN A GLOBALIZED ERA

Abstract [English]

As the international art market transitions from a niche cultural sector into a high-value global asset class—averaging annual revenues of $70–80 billion—the legal frameworks governing it face unprecedented strain. This article examines the evolving jurisprudence of the art market through a mixed-methods research approach, integrating a doctrinal and comparative analysis of international legal standards with primary empirical data gathered between October 2025 and February 2026. The empirical aspect has a structured questionnaire of 142 respondents (artists, collectors, and dealers) and semi-structured interviews with 30 high-profiled respondents (20 film directors and 10 high profile actors) in the Indian creative-collector nexus.

The analysis points towards a major Indo-global enforcement gap. When the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive of the European Union and the proposed Art Market Integrity Act of the United States impose a due diligence of the transactions that exceed 10,000 euros, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 of India does not specify transactions above 10,000 euros to be reported in the case of art dealers. Moreover, though Section 53A of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, offers a theoretical resale royalty right up to 10 percent, empirical evidence shows that the percentage of non-compliance is virtually 100 percent with 76 and 89 percent amounting to no royalties paid to creators upon the reported resales.

Within the context of authentication, the study compares the formulated judicial precedents of common-law countries including the reasonableness of care requirement that is set out in Thwaytes v. The Indian jurisprudence, which lacks development yet, according to Sotheby (2015) is still mostly dependent on the principles of the so-called buyer bewares. Statistics over 63 percent of interviewees have had attribution disputes, but Indian auction houses do not always have required forensic procedures. In order to fill these gaps, the paper discusses a high level of stakeholder support (more than 84) of blockchain-enabled provenance and the creation of a statutory collecting society. Finally, the article suggests that a phased change in the regulatory framework can be a solution to a compromise between the integrity of the Indian market and the changing global transparency norms in order to protect the privacy of the legitimate clients.