Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Belgium: Freedom of panorama – a new copyright exception


On June 27 2016, the Belgian legislature finally adopted a new exception to copyright law, namely the freedom of panorama (FOP). According to this new provision, a copyright owner cannot impose its right against "the reproduction and public communication of visual, graphic or architectural artwork intended to be placed permanently in public places, providing that it concerns the reproduction or communication of the work as it is and that said reproduction or public communication does not affect the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author" (Belgian Act of June 27 2016 modifying the Economic codex in view of implementing the freedom of panorama – new article XI.190 2/1° of the Economic codex).

In other words, the new provision allows under certain conditions the reproduction – for instance taking pictures – and the communication to the public – which can be sharing said picture on the Internet – of artworks located in public places, such as monuments and architectural works.

This new text has been long awaited in view of the development of the information society. It responds to a need that existed for a long time in the Belgian copyright legislation. Prior to the adoption of this legal provision, one could indeed be prosecuted for infringement of copyright for taking and sharing a picture, should the image include an object still protected by copyright.

The FOP exception applies to any visual, graphic or architectural work located in public areas. It is thus not limited to those objects located on public roads, which demonstrates the willingness of the legislator to give a broad application to the exception. The text nevertheless limits the rule to the works that are permanently located in the public area. It therefore excludes all temporary exhibitions and temporary works.

According to the provision, FOP duly authorises the reproduction and communication to the public of works protected by a copyright, but said reproduction and communication to the public should not affect the normal exploitation of the work, nor cause an unjustified prejudice to the author. This limitation intends to create a good balance between the purpose of the freedom of panorama on the one hand, and the author's rights on the other hand. This limitation notably narrows the exception to non-commercial purpose, as confirmed by the preparatory discussions of the Parliament. It means that any third party cannot invoke the FOP to commercially exploit reproductions of works located in a public area or communicate it to the public without the author's consent.

The new text entered into force on July 15 2016. Anyone can now safely visit the famous Atomium in Brussels, take a picture and share with their friends and family via social media, without fear of copyright infringement prosecution!


Claire Godefroid

GeversHolidaystraat, 5B-1831 Diegem - BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 715 37 11Fax: +32 2 715 37

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers wish the latest manual had more details on Federal Circuit cases and that training materials for design patent examiners were online
Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change