Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Compensation Arrangements—As of December 31, 2014, Sotheby’s had employment arrangements with certain senior employees, which expire at various points between February 2015 and July 2018. Such arrangements may provide, among other benefits, for minimum salary levels and for compensation under Sotheby's incentive compensation programs that is payable only if specified Company and individual goals are attained. Additionally, under certain circumstances, certain of these arrangements provide annual share-based payments, severance payments, other cash compensation, and the continuation of benefits upon termination of employment. The aggregate remaining commitment for salaries and other cash compensation related to these compensation arrangements, excluding any participation in Sotheby’s incentive compensation programs, was approximately $17.7 million as of December 31, 2014. Indirect Tax Contingencies—Sotheby's is subject to laws and regulations in many countries involving sales, use, value-added, and other indirect taxes which are assessed by various governmental authorities and imposed on certain revenue-producing transactions between Sotheby's and its clients. The application of these laws and regulations to Sotheby's unique business and global client base, and the estimation of any related liabilities, is complex and requires a significant amount of judgment. These indirect tax liabilities are generally not those of Sotheby’s unless it fails to collect the correct amount of sales, value-added, or other indirect taxes. Failure to collect the correct amount of indirect tax on a transaction may require Sotheby’s to record a liability and corresponding charge to General and Administrative Expenses. Guarantees of Collection—A guarantee of collection is a guarantee to a consignor that, under certain conditions, Sotheby's will pay the consignor for property that has sold at auction, but has not yet been paid for by the purchaser. It is not a guarantee that the property will be sold at a certain minimum price. As of December 31, 2014, Sotheby's has an outstanding guarantee of collection totaling $111.5 million related to property sold at auctions in the fourth quarter of 2014. In the event a purchaser has not paid for any item sold at auction by the settlement date, which is in the first quarter of 2015, Sotheby's will be required to pay the consignor the net sale proceeds, but would then take title to the property and have the right to pursue the defaulting buyer and/or reoffer the property at a future sale. As of February 26, 2015, $77.5 million of the amounts due to Sotheby's for property sold under this guarantee of collection has been remitted by the purchasers. Sotheby's has an outstanding guarantee of collection related to property that was offered at auctions throughout 2014 and will continue to be offered at auctions in 2015. In the event a purchaser does not pay for any item sold at auction by the settlement date, which is 35 days after the date of each respective auction or such other date agreed to by the consignor, Sotheby's is required to pay the consignor the net sale proceeds up to the final pre-sale mid-estimate of the item, but Sotheby's would then take title to the property and have the right to pursue the defaulting buyer and/or reoffer the property at a future sale. As of December 31, 2014, the remaining guarantee of collection related to property sold under this arrangement during the fourth quarter of 2014 totaled $2.8 million. All other amounts due to Sotheby's for property sold under this guarantee of collection have been remitted by the purchasers. Legal Actions—Sotheby’s becomes involved in various claims and lawsuits incidental to the ordinary course of its business, including the matters described below. Management is required to assess the likelihood of any adverse judgments or outcomes in these matters, as well as potential ranges of probable or reasonably possible losses. A determination of the amount of losses, if any, to be recorded or disclosed as a result of these contingencies is based on a careful analysis of each individual exposure with, in some cases, the assistance of outside legal counsel. The amount of losses recorded or disclosed for such contingencies may change in the future due to new developments in each matter or a change in settlement strategy. Management does not believe that the outcome of any of these pending claims or proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on Sotheby’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists (and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the State of California or at auction by California sellers and for which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale Royalties Act (the “Resale Royalties Act”). Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby’s filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. Sotheby's believes that there are meritorious defenses to the appeal. Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014)—On March 25, 2014, Third Point LLC ("Third Point") filed a verified complaint against William F. Ruprecht, Peregrine A. M. Cavendish, Domenico De Sole, John M. Angelo, Steven B. Dodge, Daniel H. Meyer, Allen I. Questrom, Marsha E. Simms, Michael I. Sovern, Robert S. Taubman, Diana L. Taylor and Dennis M. Weibling (collectively, the “Directors”) and nominal defendant Sotheby’s. Third Point alleged that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care in adopting a shareholder rights plan (the “Rights Plan”) on October 4, 2013 and enforcing the plan against Third Point on March 21, 2014 by denying Third Point’s request that it be treated as a 13G filer under the Rights Plan to allow it to acquire up to 20% of Sotheby’s outstanding Common Stock. Third Point alleged that the Rights Plan was not a reasonable response to a legitimate threat to Sotheby’s and alleged that the adoption and continuation of the Rights Plan hindered its ability to wage an effective proxy contest. The complaint sought a declaration that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties and that the Rights Plan was unenforceable, and sought an order that Sotheby’s be required to redeem the Rights Plan in its entirety, or in the alternative, be enjoined from enforcing the Rights Plan against Third Point, or be required to amend the Rights Plan to allow Third Point to acquire up to 20% of Sotheby’s outstanding Common Stock. Along with its complaint, Third Point moved for expedited proceedings. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination with The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No.--9508-VCP, which are discussed below (together, the "Stockholder Actions"), with this action. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motions. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. On May 4, 2014, Sotheby's entered into a support agreement that, among other things, resolved the previously pending proxy contest. As part of this support agreement, Third Point agreed to dismiss with prejudice this litigation. On May 6, 2014, Third Point filed a notice of dismissal terminating its case. The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014)—On April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby’s stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby’s. The plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called “proxy puts” in certain Sotheby’s credit agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing “proxy put” provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they “approve” the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs in this action and in the Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System action discussed below jointly filed a motion for an order dismissing the Stockholder Actions as moot and for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $3.5 million. On July 25, 2014, Sotheby’s filed a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion. A hearing on the motion was held on August 14, 2014. Prior to the Court’s resolution of the motion, the parties agreed to a settlement. On January 15, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation agreed to by the parties and an order regarding dismissal of the Stockholder Actions and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses (the “Order”). As required by the Order, Sotheby’s is notifying stockholders that the Stockholder Actions are moot and that defendants, through their insurer, have paid to plaintiffs’ counsel $1.6 million in full satisfaction of their application for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Stockholder Actions. As Sotheby’s directors and officers insurance carrier funded the full $1.6 million payment, the resolution of the Stockholder Actions did not result in any cost to Sotheby’s. The Order further provides that the Stockholder Actions will be dismissed as moot without further action of the Court unless another stockholder of Sotheby’s submits a written objection to the Court within thirty days of this notice. Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No.--9508-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014)—On April 3, 2014, Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby’s stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby’s. The plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called “proxy puts” in certain Sotheby’s credit agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing “proxy put” provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they “approve” the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motions. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. See The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014) above for the resolution of this action pursuant to the Order. (See Note 5 for information related to unfunded commitments to extend additional credit through Sotheby's Finance segment. See Note 9 for information related to Sotheby's debt commitments. See Note 11 for information related to Sotheby's income tax contingencies. See Note 18 for information related to Sotheby's auction guarantees. See Note 21 for detailed information on the support agreement entered into with Third Point on May 4, 2014.)

Commitments and Contingencies

Compensation Arrangements—As of December 31, 2014, Sotheby’s had employment arrangements with certain senior employees, which expire at various points between February 2015 and July 2018. Such arrangements may provide, among other benefits, for minimum salary levels and for compensation under Sotheby's incentive compensation programs that is payable only if specified Company and individual goals are attained. Additionally, under certain circumstances, certain of these arrangements provide annual share-based payments, severance payments, other cash compensation, and the continuation of benefits upon termination of employment. The aggregate remaining commitment for salaries and other cash compensation related to these compensation arrangements, excluding any participation in Sotheby’s incentive compensation programs, was approximately $17.7 million as of December 31, 2014.

Indirect Tax Contingencies—Sotheby's is subject to laws and regulations in many countries involving sales, use, value-added, and other indirect taxes which are assessed by various governmental authorities and imposed on certain revenue-producing transactions between Sotheby's and its clients. The application of these laws and regulations to Sotheby's unique business and global client base, and the estimation of any related liabilities, is complex and requires a significant amount of judgment. These indirect tax liabilities are generally not those of Sotheby’s unless it fails to collect the correct amount of sales, value-added, or other indirect taxes. Failure to collect the correct amount of indirect tax on a transaction may require Sotheby’s to record a liability and corresponding charge to General and Administrative Expenses.

Guarantees of Collection—A guarantee of collection is a guarantee to a consignor that, under certain conditions, Sotheby's will pay the consignor for property that has sold at auction, but has not yet been paid for by the purchaser. It is not a guarantee that the property will be sold at a certain minimum price.

As of December 31, 2014, Sotheby's has an outstanding guarantee of collection totaling $111.5 million related to property sold at auctions in the fourth quarter of 2014. In the event a purchaser has not paid for any item sold at auction by the settlement date, which is in the first quarter of 2015, Sotheby's will be required to pay the consignor the net sale proceeds, but would then take title to the property and have the right to pursue the defaulting buyer and/or reoffer the property at a future sale. As of February 26, 2015, $77.5 million of the amounts due to Sotheby's for property sold under this guarantee of collection has been remitted by the purchasers.

Sotheby's has an outstanding guarantee of collection related to property that was offered at auctions throughout 2014 and will continue to be offered at auctions in 2015. In the event a purchaser does not pay for any item sold at auction by the settlement date, which is 35 days after the date of each respective auction or such other date agreed to by the consignor, Sotheby's is required to pay the consignor the net sale proceeds up to the final pre-sale mid-estimate of the item, but Sotheby's would then take title to the property and have the right to pursue the defaulting buyer and/or reoffer the property at a future sale. As of December 31, 2014, the remaining guarantee of collection related to property sold under this arrangement during the fourth quarter of 2014 totaled $2.8 million. All other amounts due to Sotheby's for property sold under this guarantee of collection have been remitted by the purchasers.

Legal Actions—Sotheby’s becomes involved in various claims and lawsuits incidental to the ordinary course of its business, including the matters described below. Management is required to assess the likelihood of any adverse judgments or outcomes in these matters, as well as potential ranges of probable or reasonably possible losses. A determination of the amount of losses, if any, to be recorded or disclosed as a result of these contingencies is based on a careful analysis of each individual exposure with, in some cases, the assistance of outside legal counsel. The amount of losses recorded or disclosed for such contingencies may change in the future due to new developments in each matter or a change in settlement strategy. Management does not believe that the outcome of any of these pending claims or proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on Sotheby’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists (and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the State of California or at auction by California sellers and for which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale Royalties Act (the “Resale Royalties Act”). Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby’s filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. Sotheby's believes that there are meritorious defenses to the appeal.

Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014)—On March 25, 2014, Third Point LLC ("Third Point") filed a verified complaint against William F. Ruprecht, Peregrine A. M. Cavendish, Domenico De Sole, John M. Angelo, Steven B. Dodge, Daniel H. Meyer, Allen I. Questrom, Marsha E. Simms, Michael I. Sovern, Robert S. Taubman, Diana L. Taylor and Dennis M. Weibling (collectively, the “Directors”) and nominal defendant Sotheby’s. Third Point alleged that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care in adopting a shareholder rights plan (the “Rights Plan”) on October 4, 2013 and enforcing the plan against Third Point on March 21, 2014 by denying Third Point’s request that it be treated as a 13G filer under the Rights Plan to allow it to acquire up to 20% of Sotheby’s outstanding Common Stock. Third Point alleged that the Rights Plan was not a reasonable response to a legitimate threat to Sotheby’s and alleged that the adoption and continuation of the Rights Plan hindered its ability to wage an effective proxy contest. The complaint sought a declaration that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties and that the Rights Plan was unenforceable, and sought an order that Sotheby’s be required to redeem the Rights Plan in its entirety, or in the alternative, be enjoined from enforcing the Rights Plan against Third Point, or be required to amend the Rights Plan to allow Third Point to acquire up to 20% of Sotheby’s outstanding Common Stock. Along with its complaint, Third Point moved for expedited proceedings. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination with The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No.--9508-VCP, which are discussed below (together, the "Stockholder Actions"), with this action. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motions. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. On May 4, 2014, Sotheby's entered into a support agreement that, among other things, resolved the previously pending proxy contest. As part of this support agreement, Third Point agreed to dismiss with prejudice this litigation. On May 6, 2014, Third Point filed a notice of dismissal terminating its case.

The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014)—On April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby’s stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby’s. The plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called “proxy puts” in certain Sotheby’s credit agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing “proxy put” provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they “approve” the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs in this action and in the Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System action discussed below jointly filed a motion for an order dismissing the Stockholder Actions as moot and for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $3.5 million. On July 25, 2014, Sotheby’s filed a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion. A hearing on the motion was held on August 14, 2014. Prior to the Court’s resolution of the motion, the parties agreed to a settlement. On January 15, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation agreed to by the parties and an order regarding dismissal of the Stockholder Actions and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses (the “Order”). As required by the Order, Sotheby’s is notifying stockholders that the Stockholder Actions are moot and that defendants, through their insurer, have paid to plaintiffs’ counsel $1.6 million in full satisfaction of their application for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Stockholder Actions. As Sotheby’s directors and officers insurance carrier funded the full $1.6 million payment, the resolution of the Stockholder Actions did not result in any cost to Sotheby’s. The Order further provides that the Stockholder Actions will be dismissed as moot without further action of the Court unless another stockholder of Sotheby’s submits a written objection to the Court within thirty days of this notice.

Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No.--9508-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014)—On April 3, 2014, Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby’s stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby’s. The plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called “proxy puts” in certain Sotheby’s credit agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing “proxy put” provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they “approve” the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motions. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. See The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014) above for the resolution of this action pursuant to the Order.

(See Note 5 for information related to unfunded commitments to extend additional credit through Sotheby's Finance segment. See Note 9 for information related to Sotheby's debt commitments. See Note 11 for information related to Sotheby's income tax contingencies. See Note 18 for information related to Sotheby's auction guarantees. See Note 21 for detailed information on the support agreement entered into with Third Point on May 4, 2014.)