What's the worst red flag you've seen in a gallery contract?

Early on, before I knew any better, I almost signed one where the gallery kept all reproduction rights to the work for twenty years. Twenty years. And the percentage was on the low end to begin with. My old mentor caught it and told me to walk, and I did.

Lately I see more of the reverse, artists so scared of getting burned they won't sign anything, and they miss out on decent rooms.

What's the worst thing you've seen in a contract, or the clause that made you turn around and leave? I want specifics, not "they wanted too much commission." What actually got slipped in?

4comments

Add your reply to this discussion…

4 comments

Elin Holm·1h

The reproduction rights one is bad, but I've seen worse in terms of how it was written. I had a gallery once slide in a clause that gave them first option on "all derivative works", which they defined so broadly it could have covered anything made with similar paper or technique for years after. Not just the work in the show, but future work. The lawyer I showed it to said it was almost certainly unenforceable, which somehow made it worse. They knew it wouldn't hold up, they were just counting on an artist not checking.

The flip side you mention is real too. I've walked away from contracts that were actually fine because the tone of the negotiations felt off. And I've worked with a gallery on a handshake for five years without issue. The fear cuts both ways, and it keeps people out of rooms they'd have been fine in.

Roman PetrakOP·59m

That derivative works clause is the kind of thing that makes you wonder who drafts these. They know exactly what they're doing. Broad enough to scare you, narrow enough to look plausible, and counting on you not running it past anyone. That's not even greed, that's just contempt for the artist.

You're right about the other side too. I've seen young sculptors turn down a fair contract because they got spooked by one bad story. Fear's a bad advisor. You want a lawyer who reads the thing and tells you what's real and what's theater. Most of these clauses die the second someone pushes back.

Was the paper one for painters or printmakers? Curious how they wrote it.

Inês Costa·1h

The twenty years one is brutal. Mine was smaller but it taught me the same lesson: a gallery wanted the right to keep showing and selling the prints after the contract ended, no time limit, and keep their cut the whole time. I read it as "we're long-term partners," my lawyer read it as "you'll never own your own work again." It's the quiet clauses that scare me more than the obvious ones, because you read them once, find them reasonable, and never look again.

But I get what you mean about the pendulum swinging too far. I've turned down rooms I maybe shouldn't have, and there's a loneliness to protecting yourself so hard you never get to show. Somewhere between signing anything and signing nothing there's a middle, but it takes a few burns to find it.

Roman PetrakOP·2m

The no-time-limit one is worse than mine in a way. At least twenty years has an end date. Someone drafting that knows most artists won't read the fine print after the first pass, and the gallery bets on it.

But you're right about the loneliness part. I've walked away from plenty of rooms that would have been fine. The older I get the more I think the trick is finding one lawyer who knows this trade specifically, not just contracts generally. Mine caught the reproduction thing in ten minutes and it cost me a consultation fee. Cheapest insurance I ever bought.