Within the Chinese jurisdiction in 2026, the field of art law is not governed by a single code but has formed a composite system with the Civil Code as the underlying logic, supported by the current Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics, the Copyright Law, the Auction Law, and the Administrative Measures for the Operation of Artworks.

Regarding core regulatory authorities: the Ministry of Culture and Tourism is responsible for the overall administrative supervision and policymaking of the art market, focusing on investigating illegal business operations and content violations; and the National Cultural Heritage Administration (NCHA) focuses on the legal management of immovable and museum-collected cultural relics – especially after the implementation of the new law in 2025, its guiding role in the registration and filing of private collections has been significantly strengthened. Additionally, the National Copyright Administration is responsible for copyright administration, while the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) exercises authority over art auctions, anti-unfair competition and consumer rights protection.

Under Chinese law, an artist’s rights system consists of two main categories: inalienable moral rights and transferable property rights. According to the Copyright Law, moral rights include the right of publication, the right of authorship, the right of revision, and the right to protect the integrity of the work. Notably, the right to protect the integrity of the work is particularly crucial in the contemporary art context, as it prohibits others from distorting or tampering with the work against the author’s will, which often triggers intense debate regarding the relocation or restoration of installation art. Property rights cover the rights of reproduction, distribution, rental, exhibition, filming, adaptation and dissemination via information networks. The right of exhibition, as a core source of property income for visual artists, has extended from traditional physical museums to virtual reality (VR) and metaverse exhibition spaces. Furthermore, with the popularisation of digital watermarking and blockchain certification technologies, artists’ “right to remuneration” has received more precise protection in digital distribution channels.

For works created collaboratively by two or more authors, the ownership of copyright follows the principle of “agreement takes precedence; otherwise, joint ownership”. If the work can be used separately (such as a painting accompanied by a poem), the authors enjoy joint copyright over the whole but may exercise rights over their respective parts individually. If the work is indivisible (such as an oil painting completed together), the copyright is held jointly and exercised through consensus. If co-authors cannot reach an agreement, no party may, without justifiable reasons, prevent others from exercising rights other than assignment, exclusive licensing or pledging, though the resulting proceeds must be reasonably distributed among all collaborators. For “collective works” (or works of a legal entity) directed by an organisation, representing its will, and for which it bears responsibility, the artist often enjoys only the right of authorship, while the full copyright belongs to the entity. This distinction must be detailed in commission contracts to avoid ownership disputes during subsequent commercial development or entry into the secondary market.

In terms of civil liability, infringers must bear responsibilities such as ceasing the infringement, eliminating the impact, offering apologies and compensating for losses. The amount of compensation is determined in an order by the actual loss of the right-holder, the illegal gains of the infringer, or a multiple of the license fee; when the aforementioned criteria are difficult to calculate, the court may apply statutory damages of up to CNY 5 million. In a more deterrent manner, punitive damages of up to five times the calculated base may apply to malicious infringements with serious circumstances. Administratively, cultural departments may confiscate infringing reproductions and production equipment and impose fines. If the infringement constitutes a “crime of copyright infringement” it will trigger criminal prosecution.

China’s current art registration system adopts the logic of “voluntary registration and public credit disclosure”. Copyright registration is handled by copyright protection centres at various levels and serves as preliminary proof of ownership, possessing strong evidentiary effect in judicial litigation. Furthermore, by 2026, many works in the market use blockchain traceability technology to anchor physical artworks with digital certificates, recording the provenance and transaction history.

The resale right refers to the right of artists and their heirs to share a certain percentage of the transaction price in subsequent commercial resales after the initial sale of the original artwork. This right originated in Europe (eg, France) to compensate for the imbalance between low-priced sales before an artist becomes famous and high-priced circulation afterward. Within the Chinese legal framework, although the resale right is widely discussed in academic and artistic circles, a mandatory resale right system has not yet been fully implemented at the statutory level. Current practice is primarily achieved through contractual autonomy, where artists include “resale royalty clauses” in contracts during the first sale.

In the Chinese legal environment, using images of copyrighted artworks must follow the principle of “license first, use later”, unless it falls under “fair use” as stipulated in the Copyright Law (eg, personal study, teaching, or news reporting). Licensing typically occurs through several paths: primarily direct licensing via written contracts with the artist or their heirs, specifying the scope, duration, and fees; and secondary licensing through collective management organisations, where users obtain a blanket licence by paying standardised royalties for works registered with such agencies. It is important to note that even with a property right licence, users remain legally obligated to respect the author’s right of authorship and protect the integrity of the work, and may not distort the image without permission.

The authentication of a work’s genuineness involves both civil rights and academic opinions: heirs have the right to declare that a work did not originate from their predecessor to protect the artist’s reputation and moral integrity; however, such authentication is legally regarded only as expert testimony or a statement. If multiple heirs exist with conflicting opinions, the court typically appoints an independent third-party appraisal agency and makes a comprehensive determination by referencing the artist’s former assistants, authoritative scholars and scientific methods.

Based on the principle of private autonomy in the Civil Code, a foundation or expert cannot be compelled to include a specific work in a catalogue raisonné, nor can they be forced to issue a favourable certificate of authenticity. No organisation or individual has a legal obligation to recognise a private collection as genuine. Forcing an expert to issue a certificate against their academic conscience would not only violate academic freedom but could also mislead the market and constitute fraud against the public.

If an artwork is proven to be a forgery after a transaction, the buyer has multiple paths for remedy under Chinese law. First, the buyer may claim “significant misconception” under Article 147 of the Civil Code and apply to rescind the contract within the statutory period after learning the truth. Second, if it can be proven that the seller knowingly concealed the truth, it constitutes fraud, and the buyer has the right to rescind the contract and seek damages; in lawsuits against business operators, punitive damages may even be claimed by reference to the Consumer Rights Protection Law. Additionally, the buyer may claim that the seller breached the warranty against defects, seeking a return, refund, contract rescission or price reduction. In judicial practice, the court examines whether both parties fulfilled their duty of care: if the buyer is a sophisticated collector and the price was far below market value, the court may rule that the buyer assumed the risk; conversely, if the seller failed to conduct a provenance check, they must bear liability for negligence.

According to the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics effective in 2025, the definition of cultural heritage under Chinese law combines broad and narrow interpretations. Narrowly, it refers to “cultural relics”, including movable and immovable objects with historical, artistic or scientific value, such as ancient buildings, sites, stone carvings and museum collections. Broadly, it covers intangible cultural heritage and traditional villages. Regarding legal characterisation, the 2026 system emphasises the public nature and national security attributes of cultural heritage. Based on value, relics are classified into Grade I, Grade II, Grade III and general cultural relics.

The principle of “adverse possession” is strictly restricted or even excluded in the field of cultural heritage. According to the interpretative link between the Civil Code and the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics, for cultural relics unearthed within the territory that belong to the state, any private possession – regardless of duration or whether it was peaceful possession spanning generations – cannot result in ownership due to the passage of time. For private transactions of cultural relics with legal sources, ordinary rules for the transfer of property rights apply; however, for museum relics that were illegally lost, even if the buyer is a “bona fide third party”, the law tends to support recovery by the public institution, providing limited compensation based on the buyer’s degree of fault.

According to current regulations in 2026, cultural relics discovered by individuals during infrastructure construction, agricultural production, or by chance (eg, riverbed erosion) automatically belong to the state without the need for administrative confirmation. Discoverers have a legal obligation to report immediately and protect the site; private excavation, concealment or trading is strictly prohibited. The state grants spiritual or material rewards to individuals who fulfil these obligations. If a person refuses to hand over relics, cultural asset departments have the power to use administrative force for recovery and may impose sanctions under the Public Security Administration Punishment Law; serious cases (eg, illegal possession of precious relics) constitute the crime of embezzlement or the crime of excavating ancient cultural sites. In 2026, the state further strengthened the survey of privately held heritage relics, encouraging their inclusion in public collections through donation, in exchange for tax deductions or honorary titles.

Main Clauses

The main clauses in an art sales contract include special provisions such as artwork description, authenticity guarantee, authentication certificate, transfer of ownership and defect disclosure, to ensure the authenticity, legal source and transparency of the artwork’s condition. In addition, the contract covers general clauses such as price, payment method, delivery arrangements, liability for breach of contract and dispute resolution, clarifying the basic framework of the transaction and the rights and obligations of both parties. Due to the particularity of art transactions, the contract usually incorporates detailed identification requirements, proof of provenance, restoration records and other content, and stipulates return and refund mechanisms in the event of discovering forgeries or significant defects, in order to protect the buyer’s rights and interests.

Resale Restriction Clause

A resale restriction clause is also an important element, stipulating that the buyer is prohibited from reselling or consigning the artwork for auction within a certain period (usually three or five years), to control the circulation of the artwork, maintain artist market stability and prevent short-term drastic price fluctuations. These clauses collectively ensure the security and legality of art transactions, both reflecting the specificity of art transactions and adhering to the general principles of sales contracts.

According to the 2026 Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics and its accompanying Measures for the Administration of the Examination of Cultural Relics Entry and Exit, any artwork predating 1911 and works by modern masters included in the national restricted exit list are strictly prohibited from permanent export. Temporary export for exhibitions requires a declaration to the NCHA and the payment of a deposit, with the requirement of re-entry within the statutory period. In a sales contract, if a relic is privately transported abroad without a Cultural Relics Exit Permit, the contract is void for violating mandatory provisions, and the seller and logistics provider may be suspected of the crime of smuggling cultural relics. Additionally, artworks involving CITES-listed species (such as antiques containing ivory, tortoiseshell, or rhino horn) face near-absolute embargo risks in international trade; buyers and sellers must clearly stipulate customs obligations and the risk of illegal seizure in the contract, otherwise they may face severe adverse consequences.

Galleries, as primary market sellers, are subject to the warranty against defects under the Civil Code. If a forgery is sold, even if the gallery owner claims to have been deceived, they must bear the responsibility for returns, refunds and damages to the buyer. While auction houses, as intermediary agents, enjoy the right to issue disclaimers under the Auction Law, recent judicial interpretations have further restricted the abuse of such clauses: if an auction house makes misleading statements in catalogue descriptions or fails to perform “reasonable and prudent” due diligence on provenance, it cannot be exempted from liability. Specifically for “plagiarised works”, if a gallery or auction house organises a sale while knowing or having reason to know that the work infringes on another’s copyright, it constitutes joint infringement and bears responsibility for ceasing the infringement and joint and several liability for compensation.

Current laws and industry regulations have set a legal bottom line of “provenance legality verification and truthful disclosure of defects”. However, there are still no unified national mandatory detailed regulations on the specific steps and verification standards for provenance chain checks. In practice, industry-standard verification centred on original invoices, exhibition records and authoritative publications has been formed.

An art adviser is generally considered a “commission agent”" or an “intermediary agent”. Their core responsibility is to provide clients with acquisition advice, value assessments and provenance verification based on professional knowledge. The core of legal liability lies in the duty of loyalty and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. If an adviser, through gross negligence, causes a client to purchase cultural relics with illegal sources or forgeries with significantly inconsistent values, they must bear liability for damages.

The current Anti-Money Laundering Law only explicitly lists “dealers engaged in spot transactions of precious metals and gemstones above a specified amount”, as specific non-financial institution obligors; it does not yet include regular art auction houses or galleries in the statutory list. However, the law includes a catch-all provision granting authorities the power to determine other institutions required to perform AML obligations based on money laundering risk conditions. In practice, art business institutions involving large cash transactions or cross-border transactions may be required by regulatory departments to perform customer due diligence based on risk prevention requirements.

When a collection system demonstrates significant cultural continuity due to its integrity, historical logic or specific themes, it may apply for recognition as a “non-state-owned museum collection” or “protected historical archive”. Once recognised, the collection will receive holistic legal protection, with a ban on arbitrary split-selling. The government provides support in financial subsidies, professional restoration and bequest tax exemptions, but also restricts the owner’s absolute right of disposal – for example, the state has a right of first refusal during an overall transfer.

The degree of protection for photographic works depends on their originality. Photography considered a “work of art” must reflect the author’s unique aesthetic choices in light and shadow capture, composition, thematic expression, or post-production/digital processing. Such works enjoy a full term of copyright protection (life of the author plus 50 years). Additionally, for photographic images with historical documentary value (such as old photos from the late Qing Dynasty), even if the copyright has expired, their attributes as cultural relics are still governed by the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics, and any commercial reproduction or utilisation must follow relevant cultural heritage protection regulations.

For “other types of photographic images” that do not possess high aesthetic originality, such as news documentary photos, judicial practice takes a categorised approach. Although their artistic quality is limited, they are still protected by Copyright Law, but the focus of protection is on prohibiting unauthorised commercial reproduction. For images generated entirely by machines or those with only functional recording significance (such as surveillance footage screenshots), the law tends to define them as raw data or digital evidence, not granting them the status of a work under copyright law.

A non-fungible token (NFT) is a digital asset based on blockchain technology. Its core characteristics are uniqueness and irreplaceable nature. NFTs are not permitted to circulate as payment tools in China but are instead viewed as a type of digital commodity or a digital mapping of an artwork. The core of legal recognition lies in its “certificate” nature: holding an NFT is not equivalent to automatically owning the copyright of the underlying artwork unless otherwise explicitly agreed upon in the transfer contract.

While blockchain technology is immutable, regulated domestic digital collection platforms bear a high-intensity pre-audit obligation beyond “notice-and-takedown”. If the underlying content of an NFT is found to involve plagiarism or forgery, the platform can perform a “black hole treatment” (transferring it to an inaccessible address) via smart contract logic, effectively terminating its circulation potential. Individuals who maliciously mint and sell infringing NFTs face copyright infringement liability, and if the amount involved is large and fraud exists, it may constitute the crime of fraud. The legality of NFT circulation must be traced back to the authorisation chain of the underlying artwork; any broken authorisation will result in the legal invalidity of the digital asset.

Mature art succession planning has shifted from simple testamentary inheritance to a composite configuration. In practice, a “Will plus Agreement plus Inventory” model is typically adopted: first, the asset boundaries are established through a detailed inventory (including high-definition images, provenance proof and insurance contracts); second, professional legal or art institutions are designated as managers responsible for physical protection, or family trusts/charitable foundations are established to shift ownership from individuals to legal entities, thereby avoiding the risk of collection fragmentation due to scattered heirs and achieving bankruptcy isolation between art assets and family members’ personal risks.

The most prominent conflict in intestate or testamentary succession is between indivisibility and fractional inheritance. If a high-value artwork is jointly inherited by multiple heirs, it easily leads to a deadlock in the exercise of joint rights. Fiscally, although discussions on inheritance tax remain in the deliberation stage, the personal income tax and value-added tax involved in art transactions remain a significant burden; if heirs resell the work, the determination of the cost basis directly affects the tax load. Additionally, if the work belongs to a category prohibited from trading by the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics, its inheritance is legal, but subsequent circulation is restricted, which must be fully considered when assessing asset value.

For private gifts, tax law follows the principle of “relative exemption, non-relative taxation”. Gratuitous gifts of artworks between close relatives are considered a legal transfer of family property and are not subject to personal income tax. However, for gifts between non-relatives, the artwork obtained by the recipient is defined as “incidental income” and is subject to personal income tax. In terms of public welfare donations, the tax impact is primarily reflected in incentives for the donor; donors who give artworks to qualified public welfare organisations can deduct the amount (within limits) when calculating taxable income based on the donation receipt.

As of 2026, China has not established a specific inheritance or gift tax.

Artworks can be established as trust property. According to the Trust Law of the People’s Republic of China, a trust refers to an act whereby the settlor, based on trust in the trustee, entrusts the property rights to the trustee, who manages or disposes of them in the trustee’s own name, according to the settlor’s wishes, for the benefit of the beneficiary or for a specific purpose. The subject of a trust is property rights, and artworks that possess value attributes and are legally considered valuable movable property can legally become trust property.

According to the Trust Law, the purpose of the trust is one of the necessary conditions for establishing a trust, but the purpose must not violate laws or administrative regulations, nor harm public interests. In the context of artwork inheritance, the trust structure with artworks as trust property is a good inheritance tool for realising the cultural and economic value inheritance of artworks. Currently, beneficial attempts have already begun in China, and as long as they do not violate legal provisions, issues of penalties are not yet involved.