u/Rivered1

I am building an online encyclopedia of historical watchmakers, cataloguing their works chronologically per maker. Every watchmaker gets a dedicated page with all known works listed, described in my own words, with full attribution and hyperlinks back to the original auctionhouse (mostly Christie's/ Sotheby's) lot page. The images displayed on my platform are from the auction houses, downloaded and hosted on my own server, which I know is technically the core of the legal problem but is also crucial to the concept because the encyclopedia only works if the images are consistently available. The site also has a small commercial shop component further complicating quotation rights.

Nothing like this can be found online and I would expect that serious collectors, researchers and enthusiasts will find the auction houses through my site. I am essentially building free SEO and traffic. What I found is that both Christie's and Sotheby's explicitly claim copyright on all lot images in their terms. purchasing it from the photographers.

I see that websites like MutualArt and Invaluable do this at scale, some behind paywalls, apparently without issue. It seems tolerated but I cannot find any case law or public statements that what they are doing is allowed. Neither can I find any that these auction houses have filed complaint against smaller websites using their copyrighted material.

My actual question is if there are EU fair use or quotation right that covers this kind of reference database? If I would go public and they object, is the realistic first response a cease and desist or immediately (significant) compensation claims? Their terms actually state the former, which would give some leeway. Not asking anyone to greenlight infringement; genuinely trying to understand the realistic legal landscape before deciding whether to seek formal permission, consult a lawyer or just proceed as is.

Location: Netherlands, EU

I am building an online encyclopedia of historical watchmakers, cataloguing their unique works organised chronologically per maker. Every watchmaker gets a dedicated page with all known works listed, described in my own words, with full attribution and hyperlinks back to the original Christie's or Sotheby's lot page. I write every description myself, nothing is copied from the auction houses. The images I use are the auction house lot photos, downloaded and hosted on my own server, which I know is technically the core of the legal problem but is also crucial to the concept because the encyclopedia only works if the images are consistently available and not dependent on auction house pages staying live forever. The site also has a small shop component but the overwhelming purpose is educational and encyclopedic.

Nothing like this exists anywhere online and the expectation is that serious collectors, researchers and enthusiasts will find the auction house pages through my site rather than the other way around. I am essentially building free SEO and traffic for Christie's and Sotheby's.

What I already know: Both Christie's and Sotheby's explicitly claim copyright on all lot images in their terms. Christie's states verbatim that images may not be stored in an archive or electronic retrieval database. Photographers transfer copyright to the auction houses per their contracts. I am subject to EU and French law.

What I observe: Sites like MutualArt and Invaluable do this at scale, some behind paywalls, apparently without issue. It seems tolerated in practice but I cannot find any case law or public statements that this is actually fine.

My actual questions: Is there an EU fair use or quotation right that covers this kind of reference database? If I go live and they object, is the realistic first response a cease and desist or immediately massive damages for thousands of images? Does adding clear value through unique categorisation, full attribution and traffic referral actually change anything legally?

Not asking anyone to greenlight infringement. Genuinely trying to understand the realistic legal landscape before deciding whether to seek formal permission or consult a lawyer.

I am building an online encyclopedia of historical watchmakers, cataloguing their unique works organised chronologically per maker. Every watchmaker gets a dedicated page with all known works listed, described in my own words, with full attribution and hyperlinks back to the original Christie's or Sotheby's lot page. I write every description myself, nothing is copied from the auction houses. The images I use are the auction house lot photos, downloaded and hosted on my own server, which I know is technically the core of the legal problem but is also crucial to the concept because the encyclopedia only works if the images are consistently available and not dependent on auction house pages staying live forever. The site also has a small shop component but the overwhelming purpose is educational and encyclopedic. Nothing like this exists anywhere online and the expectation is that serious collectors, researchers and enthusiasts will find the auction house pages through my site rather than the other way around. I am essentially building free SEO and traffic for Christie's and Sotheby's.

What I already know: Both Christie's and Sotheby's explicitly claim copyright on all lot images in their terms. Christie's states verbatim that images may not be stored in an archive or electronic retrieval database. Photographers transfer copyright to the auction houses per their contracts.

What I see online is that sites like MutualArt, ArtPrice, Lot-tissimo and others do this at scale, some even behind paywalls, apparently without any legal issues I was able to trace. It seems tolerated in practice but I cannot find any case law or public statements that this is actually fine.

My actual questions: Is there an EU fair use or quotation right that covers this kind of reference database? If I go live and they object, is the realistic first response a cease and desist or immediately massive damages for thousands of images? Does adding clear value through unique categorisation, full attribution and traffic referral actually change anything legally?

Not asking anyone to greenlight infringement. Genuinely trying to understand the realistic legal landscape before deciding whether to seek formal permission or consult a lawyer.

Location: Netherlands, Europe.