A new public-private partnership to make art more accessible?

What if national collections were loaned out more often? This issue is not totally new issue. For example, in relation to temporary exhibitions, the Heritage Code has provided, since a 1981 decree, that private-law organisations may borrow works held by national museums, provided that they are organisations ‘with a cultural purpose, operating on a non-profit basis ’ (Article D. 423-6). These works are subject to a protective regime: museum collections are among the assets that may form part of the public movable domain within the meaning of Article L. 2112-1 of the General Code on the Property of Public Bodies (CG3P), while the collections of the ‘Musées de France’ belonging to a public body form part of its public domain and are, as such, inalienable pursuant to Article L. 451-5 of the Heritage Code.

Many private associations and foundations have therefore been able to benefit from temporary loans, both in France and abroad. However, loans to galleries, private for-profit museums or other commercial operators, such as auction houses, were in principle excluded under the previous wording of Article D. 423-6 of the Heritage Code.

Decree No. 2026-397 of 22 May 2026 opens up new possibilities in this regard. In particular, it amends Article D. 423-6 of the Heritage Code to allow works belonging to collections entrusted to the care of national museums to be loaned not only to public bodies but also to private legal entities, provided that they ‘ensure public access’. The reform marks a significant development and reflects a simple idea: public heritage, in order to be seen by as many people as possible, may also be loaned to private organisations, provided that such loans serve a cultural purpose and ensure public access.

This step forward is to be welcomed, and one can well imagine that it was not easy to reach such a decision. More than ever, national museums – which are already very open to collaboration, particularly at an international level – are no longer seen as institutions practising ‘splendid isolation’, especially in their relations with the private sector. The circulation of artworks can breathe new life into venues, reach new audiences, support original cultural projects and, in the process, contribute to the development of patronage – which, as we know, is more necessary than ever to restore or enrich collections.

However, this relaxation is not unlimited. The decree places loans to private-law legal entities within a framework that leaves the administration considerable discretion. Article D. 423-6 of the Heritage Code covers, on the one hand, temporary exhibitions of a cultural nature held as part of a cultural project and accompanied, where appropriate, by outreach activities, and, on the other hand, cultural events during which national museums carry out cultural promotion or fundraising initiatives aimed, in particular, at the restoration or enrichment of their collections.

It is therefore not a matter of making public works available indiscriminately for private interests, but rather an arrangement governed by three cumulative requirements: the existence of a cultural project or event, a guarantee of public accessibility, and compliance with the conditions for the preservation of the loaned works. Article D. 423-6 specifies that the beneficiaries of the loan must guarantee compliance with the conditions for preserving the works, particularly in terms to security and safety, and that an agreement must set out the terms and conditions of the loan.

But it is precisely here that the most sensitive legal issues arise, issues which the decree does not fully address. We can trust the Ministry of Culture’s administration not to confuse openness with trivialisation, and to keep a close watch, even if this means dampening the enthusiasm of certain private operators. However, this vigilance must be based on criteria that are sufficiently clear for lending museums, for potential beneficiaries and, where necessary, for the administrative court.

What does ‘ensuring public accessibility’ actually mean? Would a ticketed exhibition in a private venue be regarded as ‘accessible’? Should factors such as the admission price, opening hours, booking conditions, capacity limits, educational programmes, and access for school groups, people with disabilities or so-called ‘disadvantaged’ groups be taken into account? The concept must be defined objectively; otherwise, it will become a convenient but fragile formula. In the absence of guidelines or administrative policy, decisions on loans risk being assessed on a case-by-case basis, with a degree of uncertainty that could give rise to disputes.

Another tricky point is that the scope of possible operations appears to be relatively limited. A company wishing to borrow a work held in the custody of a national museum will have to link its application either to a ‘temporary exhibition of a cultural nature’ organised as part of a ‘cultural project’, or to a ‘cultural event’ enabling the national museum to carry out cultural promotion or seek sponsorship. Each of these terms is open to interpretation. Could a very high-quality exhibition organised alongside an auction be regarded as forming part of a cultural project, or would the commercial nature of the event prevent the loan from being granted? The answer is not clear from the text as it stands.

Furthermore, in museum practice, the loan of a work is not usually remunerated in the same way as a hire. Instead, the borrower bears all the costs associated with the work’s movement, including insurance, transport, packaging, security, escort, installation and return. Opening up to private, for-profit partners could, however, raise the question again: when a public artwork contributes to the commercial appeal of an event, is it still justified for the loan to be free of charge? If a public artwork contributes directly to the economic appeal of an event, to ticket sales, to brand awareness or to the promotion of a commercial venture, providing it free of charge could even be viewed as an undue economic advantage. The risk is not merely one to heritage or reputation: it may also become a competitive risk. Free loans are therefore not impossible, but they must be justified, properly regulated and accompanied by proportionate consideration in return.

Everything will therefore depend on the assessment made by the competent authority and by the Scientific Committee of the National Museums, whose prior opinion – which is purely advisory – is required under Article R. 423-7 of the Heritage Code. Article R. 421-2 sets out the decision-making powers, entrusting the bulk of decision-making authority to museum directors.

The terms of the loan agreement, referred to in the final paragraph of Article D. 423-6 of the Heritage Code, will also be decisive. For both parties, it will serve as the primary instrument of risk management. Preventative conservation, transport, packaging, handling, security, fire safety, climatic conditions, insurance, liability in the event of damage, control of exhibition conditions, prohibition on subletting, early return, reproduction of images, communication, and use of the museum’s brand or name: each of these points must be addressed in detail. The temptation to draw up more detailed contracts, given this greater openness to the private sector, is bound to arise, and it will undoubtedly be desirable, provided that it does not become a deterrent.

The decree further stipulates that loans may only be granted if the borrower agrees, for the entire duration of the loan, to allow the head of collections at the lending museum – within the meaning of Article L. 442-8 of the Heritage Code – or a representative of Ministry of Culture (General Direction for Heritage and Architecture) to monitor the measures taken to ensure the protection of the loaned work. This provision must be reflected in the contract through rights of access to the exhibition venues, reporting obligations, corrective measures and, in the most serious cases, the suspension of the exhibition or the early withdrawal of the work.

The decree of 22 May 2026 is therefore a step in the right direction. It recognises that cooperation between public institutions and private partners can serve the public cultural interest. However, this new flexibility will only succeed if it is accompanied by clear guidance from the Ministry of Culture and rigorous practice on the part of the lending museums. The aim is to showcase the works without exposing them to excessive risks, whether material, legal or reputational. It is a demanding but worthwhile challenge: to ensure that national collections circulate more widely, without ever trivialising them.