Stolen Art Databases, Bridging Gaps, and Balancing the Need for Private Policing

January 22, 2025

By Eleanor Gartstein

The older a given artwork or artifact is, the more likely it has a long and complicated ownership history. Records of this ownership history become increasingly difficult to track with time, often suffering from inescapable gaps due to lost documents, fading memories, and the rise and fall of businesses such as galleries and auction houses.^[1] These gaps are then detrimental to the accurate study of history, law enforcement’s ability to respond to crime, and art market participants when ownership disputes arise.^[2]

To counteract the loss of even further information, a variety of digital databases for stolen art and cultural property have developed.^[3] Some databases, such as the recently launched Museum of Looted Antiquities and the Center for Art Law’s Case Law Database, are intended to serve a more educational and archival role for academic analysis. Other databases are designed to assist law enforcement with criminal investigations. For example, the FBI operates the National Stolen Art File while Interpol consolidates information in their Stolen Works of Art database. There are also private, for-profit databases such as the Art Loss Register that primarily function to support individual actors in making more informed decisions within the art market.

The multitude of existing databases reflects a general consensus that centralized information is valuable and should be prioritized. Even over fifty years ago, the 1970 UNESCO Convention recognized a need for signatories to establish a national inventory of protected cultural heritage items.^[4] An example of a more narrow scope can be seen in the 1998 Washington Principles, which called for a central registry specifically focused on Nazi-era provenance research.^[5] Several private and governmental entities now maintain lists cataloging this information, including the Lost Art Database and the Jewish Digital Cultural Recovery Project (JDCRP). Given decades of restitution efforts following World War II and the rise of lawsuits following the 1998 Washington Conference, Center for Art Law also began working on a Nazi-Looted Art Restitution Project, an interactive and comprehensive database intended to house all Nazi-looted restitution cases.

Databases’ Legal Role in Due Diligence

In the civil context, Article 4(4) of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Objects solidified the link between databases and due diligence:

In determining whether the possessor exercised due diligence, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the acquisition, including the character of the parties, the price paid, whether the possessor consulted any reasonably accessible register of stolen cultural objects, and any other relevant information and documentation which it could reasonably have obtained, and whether the possessor consulted accessible agencies or took any other step that a reasonable person would have taken in the circumstances.^[6]

This suggests that to better ensure legitimacy of ownership, prospective buyers should consult a stolen art database to determine whether there is any existing indication that the artwork they seek may have been stolen.^[7] Theft victims, whether individuals or national governments, have a reciprocal diligence role to ensure their loss is registered in as many relevant, accessible databases as possible.^[8] Whether the theft victim exercised reasonable diligence in seeking their lost item, or prejudiced the defendant by any delay in filing suit, are important considerations for courts that wish to protect the interest of good-faith buyers.^[9]

Challenges

While the primary purpose of archives and databases is to consolidate information, the reality that results from the variety of existing databases is a barrier of split information.^[10] Labeling and descriptive terminology standards for registered items are inconsistent and dependent on the database that houses the information.^[11] Some databases are inaccessible to the public and maintain strict confidentiality of their content.^[12] While there are well-founded reasons to keep information classified, such as in the context of ongoing criminal investigations, duplicate law enforcement efforts towards rediscovering the same item could very well be happening in multiple locations without knowledge of the other. A further consequence of having such a variety in databases is unclear guidance for buyers on what conduct satisfies reasonable diligence.

Another obstacle facing database integrity is underreporting. As mentioned, theft victims must exercise their own diligence and ensure they report their loss in a timely manner. Some museums, however, have been accused of intentionally failing to report thefts to law enforcement or register them into databases. In a 1991 dispute over a Chagall painting, the Guggenheim museum successfully defended their two-decade delay in reporting the painting’s theft to law enforcement as justified because publicizing a security breach could have led to more thefts or pushed the missing painting further underground.^[13] However, others believe the leading reason behind museum underreporting could be in avoidance of public scrutiny.^[14]

Illustrating Database Concerns through Comparison

While the fragmented state of databases and failure to report are broad issues, more specific concerns arise depending on the database in question. Databases run by public-facing entities bring entirely different considerations than those that are operated privately.

Interpol’s Stolen Works of Art Database

Interpol’s Stolen Works of Art Database was established in 1995 alongside the UNIDROIT Convention. It is the only public stolen art database with certified police information on an international level.^[15] The greatest advantages provided by Interpol’s database is its reliability and higher degree of transparency. In 2009, Stolen Works of Art was made available to authorized members of the public via an individual application process.^[16] More recently, Interpol introduced the ID-Art Mobile App, accessible to anyone with no requirement for approved application.^[17] Interpol’s active pursuit of accessibility does assist buyers in better facilitating their due diligence under Article 4(4), however remains restricted in its ability to answer to the global volume of lost art. Interpol’s public function brings limited resources, only a small fraction of which are allocated to the issue of stolen art.^[18] Given the breadth of theft claims throughout the world and inevitable resource constraints, the need for private policing of some kind is unavoidable. Private businesses have taken it upon themselves to fill this void.

The Art Loss Register

The Art Loss Register (ALR) is the most prominent private database of stolen art, antiquities, and collectables.^[19] The database was originally created in 1990 to digitize the stolen art catalog maintained by the International Foundation of Art Research (IFAR).^[20] ALR has now grown to hold over 700,000 listings and is utilized as a key due diligence service by many art market participants.^[21] Theft victims register their lost piece in the database while prospective buyers pay to obtain a clearance certificate stating that according to ALR’s available records, the work in question is free from loss or theft claims.^[22] While the clearance certificate is not comprehensive, ALR’s status as the largest existing database does make its grant of clearance meaningful. ALR also holds a nonprofit registry, The Cultural Heritage At Risk Database (CHARD), to assist in cultural object identification.^[23] Theft victims are even able to enlist ALR’s services in recovering their lost item.

While ALR’s scope is its best asset, some have called its for-profit structure into question.^[24] Art theft and antiquities trafficking are overwhelmingly motivated by financial incentives, which can naturally give way to misconduct when engaging with an entity that also operates off financial incentives. Critics challenge the role as better placed in the hands of law enforcement, and have brought forth concerns that the process for obtaining an ALR clearance certificate allows for manipulation by thieves.^[25] ALR, however, defends their business model as the only way to raise the necessary capital to properly build and maintain a resource-intensive database.^[26] The Art Loss Register has undoubtedly taken on a crucial role, filling in gaps where law enforcement’s constrained resources cannot.

Conclusion

The current decentralized state of stolen art databases imposes significant limitations to successful research and recovery efforts. Cross-sectoral cooperation needs to improve to encourage standardized terminology and set out clear due diligence standards for buyers.^[27] However, the interests driving academic researchers, law enforcement, and market actors are often incompatible and greater cooperation would necessitate significant compromise. The continued advancement of technology and AI could provide an opportunity to bridge existing gaps.

Suggested Readings and Videos:

• 2021 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on Transnational Crime Issues: Art and Antiquities Trafficking
• New York Times article, Tracking Stolen Art, for Profit, and Blurring a Few Lines, describing ALR and considerations on private policing
• The Art Newspaper article, A new online museum is sharing histories of repatriated objects, discussing the newly launched digital Museum of Looted Antiquities (MoLA)
• Center for Art Law’s Program with Marc Masurovsky on Databases and Provenance Research, a webinar exploring the displacement of objects during the Nazi-era and resources

About the Author:

Eleanor Gartstein (Fall 2024 Intern at the Center for Art Law) is a second-year law student at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. She holds a B.B.A. in International Business and a B.A. in Art History from the University of Texas at Austin. Her academic interests include international cultural heritage policy, art market regulations, restitution efforts, and museum issues.

Bibliography:

1. David Hall, Stolen Cultural Property: A Due Diligence Primer, Delaware Lawyer (Fall, 2017). ↑
2. See Christa Roodt & Bernadine Benson, Databases for stolen art: Progress, prospects and limitations, South African Crime Q. 52(1):5 (2015). ↑
3. Mari-Claudia Jimenez, Whose Art Is It Anyways? Issues Concerning Provenance and Good Title When Buying Art, Practical Advice on Handling Legal Issues Confronting the Art World Today (May 21, 2013). ↑
4. UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Nov. 14, 1970. ↑
5. Washington Conference Principles of Nazi-Confiscated Art, Dec. 3, 1998. ↑
6. UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, art. 4, June 24, 1995. ↑
7. Mari-Claudia Jimenez, Whose Art Is It Anyways? Issues Concerning Provenance and Good Title When Buying Art, Practical Advice on Handling Legal Issues Confronting the Art World Today (May 21, 2013). ↑
8. Christopher Cutting, Protecting Cultural Property Through Provenance, 32 Seattle U. L. Rev. 943 (2009). ↑
9. Jimenez, Whose Art Is It Anyways?. ↑
10. Eleanor Fink, Pedro Szekely, & Craig Knoblock, How Linked Open Data Can Help in Locating Stolen or Looted Cultural Property, Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection (2014), ↑
11. Christopher Cutting, Protecting Cultural Property Through Provenance, 32 Seattle U. L. Rev. 943 (2009). ↑
12. Id. ↑
13. See Solomon R. Guggenheim Found. v. Lubell, 77 N.Y.2d 311 (N.Y. 1991). ↑
14. Roodt & Benson, Databases for stolen art. ↑
15. Fabrizio Panone, The database of Stolen Works of Art – how can this tool help in the fight against trafficking of cultural property?, European Parliament (July 13, 2015). ↑
16. Roodt & Benson, Databases for stolen art. ↑
17. Nora McGreevy, Interpol’s New App Combats Art Crime and Protects Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian Magazine (May 12, 2021). ↑
18. Roodt & Benson, Databases for stolen art. ↑
19. See Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly, Every Art Collector Needs this Database. But Is it Being Manipulated by Thieves?, Observer (Sept. 27, 2022), ↑
20. Jimenez, Whose Art Is It Anyways?. ↑
21. Id. ↑
22. Jimenez, Whose Art Is It Anyways?. ↑
23. See The Art Loss Register, The Cultural Heritage At Risk Database (CHARD). ↑
24. See Charlotte Burns, Stolen art? Why no one can say for sure, The Art Newspaper (June 1, 2015). ↑
25. Id. ↑
26. Id. ↑
27. Roodt & Benson, Databases for stolen art. ↑