Are you permitted to use street art or buildings in public spaces in your advertising campaigns?

Many companies use urban landscapes as a backdrop for their marketing materials, but this often raises questions about copyright of visible works of art or buildings. The short answer is: yes, in Belgium you may reproduce and communicate works that are permanently located in public spaces, such as street art or buildings, even for commercial purposes. This falls under what is known as ‘freedom of panorama’, provided that you depict the work as it is located there, do not digitally manipulate it, and pass the so-called ‘three-step test’.

The facts and legal context

In a recent dispute before the Court of First Instance in Liège, Liège division, the scope of this exception was at the heart of the matter. A visual artist, known for his murals (frescoes), took a car brand and an advertising agency to court.

The reason was twofold:

• The international campaign: It featured a photo of a vehicle with the artist's mural in the background. The fresco was visible as it appeared in the street scene, without any alterations.
• The Belgian campaign: The photo was digitally edited for a specific promotion. The smileys in the artwork were modified to display the price (‘€9’).

The artist claimed a violation of his copyright (both economic rights and moral rights) and demanded compensation and an injunction. The defense invoked for the unaltered photo the panorama-exception (Art. XI.190, §2/1° Code of Economic Law or CEL).

The decision and the regulations

The president of the court ruled in a judgment of 16 December 2025 in favor of the advertisers with regard to the international, unmodified campaign. The court confirmed that this application met the legal conditions of the panorama exception.

According to Article XI.190, §2/1° CEL, an author may not oppose the reproduction and communication of works of visual, graphic, or architectural art if two cumulative conditions are met:

1. The work was created to be permanently placed in public spaces.
2. The reproduction or communication takes place of the work as it is located there.

The court found that the mural is permanently visible from the public highway. Crucial was the judgment that the photo showed the work in its “natural habitat” as part of the urban decor. Because the photograph did not isolate or artificially reconstruct the work, the reproduction remained faithful to reality.

With regard to the edited photo (in which the smileys were modified), the defense itself acknowledged that this did not fall under the exception, as the work had been altered. However, the artist's claim was still rejected on the grounds that there was no risk of repetition, as the campaign had already been discontinued.

Legal analysis and strategic advice

This ruling provides essential insights for marketing agencies, photographers, and businesses.

1. The ‘three-step test’

It is not sufficient for a use to merely meet the definition of the panorama exception. As confirmed in the judgment and legal doctrine, the court must always carry out an additional check: the so-called three-step test(see Article XI.192/3 CEL). This test serves as a safety net for the author.

In this case, the judge applied this test meticulously to determine whether the advertising campaign was permissible:

• Is this a special case? Yes, the reproduction of a work that is permanently placed in public space is a specific exception defined by law.
• Will the normal exploitation of the work be compromised? The judge ruled that the mural is inextricably linked to the street wall and is not intended for autonomous commercial exploitation (such as the sale of posters of the work itself). The mere fact that the work is visible in the background of an advertising photo for a car does not deprive the artist of his own sources of income.
• Are the legitimate interests of the author not unreasonably prejudiced? This is often the stumbling block. The artist argued that he did not want to be associated with the car brand. However, the judge ruled that the three-step test does not serve to protect “mere discomfort.” There was no damage to the reputation of the work, nor was it distorted or placed in a derogatory context. The association was purely documentary, not symbolic.

2. The requirement of ‘permanently in public places’

The exception only applies to works that are created to remain permanently in public spaces. Examples include statues, buildings, and permanent graffiti. Temporary installations, such as advertising posters or temporary exhibitions (building wraps), are generally excluded. The location must be a “public place,” such as streets, squares, and parks, but not necessarily the interior of museums or buildings.

3. Integrity of the work: “as it is there”

This is the biggest stumbling block in practice. The legislator requires that the work be presented in its context.

• Permitted: Photographing a car in front of a graffiti wall, with the wall serving as a backdrop. Zooming in and out (framing) is permitted, as long as the work is not taken out of context.
• Not permitted: Digitally manipulating the work (as in the Belgian campaign in the judgment), changing the colors, or “cutting out” the work to place it on a white background or in a different setting. Such manipulation infringes on the moral rights of the author.

4. Commercial use is permitted.

Unlike, for example, the French legislation, Belgian law does not explicitly exclude commercial use. This ruling confirms that as long as the conditions are met, you may use a photo of a public work of art in a brochure, on a website, or in an advertisement.

Practical advice:

• For advertisers: You may use public spaces as a free backdrop, but please respect the reality. Avoid Photoshop edits to the artworks themselves. Ensure that the artwork serves as a background and not as the main object of your sale (for example: do not sell posters of just the artwork).
• For authors: By permanently placing your work in the public domain, you accept a restriction of your exclusive rights. However, you retain your moral rights: your work may not be mutilated or placed in a context that damages your honor or reputation.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

May I use a photo of the Atomium for commercial purposes?
Yes, since the introduction of freedom of panorama in 2016, you may distribute photos of the Atomium (and other permanent buildings), including for commercial purposes, as long as the building is depicted as it appears in public space.

May I digitally modify street art for my campaign?
No. The exception only applies to the work “as it is located there.” Digitally altering the work (for example, changing colors or adding text to the artwork) is not covered by the exception and requires the artist's permission.

Does this rule also apply to temporary art installations?
No, the law requires that the work be created for permanent placement in public places. Temporary exhibitions or events are generally not covered by this exception.

Conclusion

The Belgian panorama exception offers considerable creative freedom for photographers and advertisers, as long as the integrity of the street scene is respected. The keyword is authenticity: show the work as it is, where it is. As soon as you start digital manipulation or decontextualization, you enter the zone of copyright infringement.