Today, we’re releasing Navigating Uncertainty: Legal Risk Awareness and Management in European Museums, a study commissioned by COMMUNIA and conducted by Centrum Cyfrowe (available as a PDF file). As part of our work on a Digital Knowledge Act, we have identified the fear of being sued and held liable for copyright infringement as a major barrier preventing knowledge institutions from fully using the opportunities available under the current copyright framework. Centrum Cyfrowe’s research offers concrete evidence of how the potential legal exposure to copyright claims hinders museums in fulfilling their public mission to make knowledge and culture accessible to the broadest possible audience. Further insights will follow in early 2026, when COMMUNIA will publish more research by the Institute for Information Law (IViR) exploring this issue in greater depth.
Drawing on eight in-depth interviews with professionals from the sector, the study explores how European museums deal with legal risks. The focus is on copyright in everyday practices regarding collection reuse: from building online repositories to creating educational materials, or experimenting with AI tools. The study shows that museums often adopt risk-averse strategies around copyright and intellectual property. With fear of infringement limiting access and reuse, the key takeaways call for urgent harmonisation of EU copyright law, the introduction of safe harbours for museums, and collaborative frameworks to balance caution with innovation.
Organisational mindset and (no) appetite for copyright risk
Copyright issues permeate museum operations. Copyright-related challenges appear especially present in management of contemporary art, digital collections, and older acquisitions with unclear contracts. Litigation is rare, but the fear of infringement is real. Rare cases of copyright violations from the past still create long-lasting anxiety in institutions very much concerned about their public image. This fear shapes behaviour – many institutions choose caution over openness.
In a nutshell, there is a saying in the museum that a good artist is a dead artist. This has nothing to do with creating exhibitions, works of art or developing them in consultation with the author. It’s brutal, but it shows the nature of the business.
(Interview with museum professional from Poland)
The museum once used a photograph that turned out to be of a living artist, even though it had been in our collection for many years. (…) and the museum was obliged to pay some kind of remuneration or compensation for using the photograph. This caused a bit of fear of taking any risks, because it’s one thing when nothing happens on the street and no one has an accident, but it’s quite another when something does happen. And there is a little more fear in the institution, that is such a hereditary fear. Because even those who did not participate in this situation are now perceived as being terribly afraid that such situations could happen.
(Interview with museum professional from Poland)
Organisational culture is decisive. Some museums are risk-averse, prioritising compliance and protection. Others see openness as their mission, pushing boundaries for public access. Larger institutions with legal teams manage risk more strategically, for example by taking advantage of the scope of protection of exceptions and limitations to copyright. Collaboration across departments often determines whether innovation and reuse is possible.
Museums use different strategies for managing copyright risks. A lot depends on available resources and these are uneven. Few have in-house legal teams. Most rely on external advisors or informal practices. Lack of policies and training increases uncertainty. Respondents stressed the need for copyright education, internal guidelines, and sector-wide safeguards.
The need for harmonisation and safe harbours in copyright law
Museums call for clearer rules and collective action to reduce fragmentation. Harmonised copyright laws in Europe for cultural heritage institutions would lower the risks for institutions while maintaining diligence. They need safe harbours allowing them to fulfill their public interest role in the dynamically evolving ecosystem.
It would be good to be protected from the fact that even if we do make a mistake, because it can happen in the future, it would be treated as a mistake and not as some kind of intentional action.
(Interview with museum professional from Germany)
It would be great to have, like rules [safeguards] that add a layer of comfort. But that shouldn’t keep heritage organisations from being very diligent in doing their work in terms of working with rights holders and making sure that collections are made available under conditions that both parties are happy with.
(Interview with museum professional from the Netherlands)
Such frameworks would not only encourage more open access and reuse initiatives but also strengthen cross-sectoral collaboration enabling museums to innovate with greater confidence. In the long term, this would support a more resilient and inclusive cultural sector, aligned with European values of diversity and public benefit.
Conclusion: a paradox of mission and risk
Museums aim to make culture accessible. Yet legal uncertainty and limited resources constrain them. Harmonised across Europe regulations and frameworks acknowledging their unique role for the society, stronger institutional policies and better collaboration, are key. By addressing these issues, European museums can balance openness with responsibility. This will allow them to share culture widely while protecting creators and communities.