[aurele]

when photo stock like Getty will be harassed by request like this one, i think the justice will rethink about this judgement.

It's totally ridiculous : Le Corbusier did soooooo many things in design, buildings, etc ... that if any of it's product can't be shoot, let me tell you that half of Paris and it's suburb are under copyright (Yes, i live in Paris. And i see a thing design by Le corbusier almost every day.)

[JFN]

Ooops, I did it again....

The purpose of this shot is the staty, which is a piece of art found here in France. It's not an accident that it's on my shot, it's not just by coincidenca a part of the image, I took the shot at the staty wanting it to be the center of my photo for people to watch.

*waiting* (to get sued).

[BigDave]

Well, you've got to give the French cudos for that part of it!

However, not everyone that gets married should be shot au natural!

Regards,

[aurele]

i got some information about this judgement in fact the BJP is a bit misunderstanding the french law and judgement. No offence.

In french law, you can take picture of art object if they are not "primary" (i don't find the right english word ... sorry) in a picture, or a movie.
It's copyright infrigement if you take a picture of licence object in order to associate the idea, the popularity, all the things that are commonly associate with this object, to another object.

Let's take an example to make it crystal clear

Let's take alcohol add.

Imagine a man that sit in a chair, with a glass of whisky.
The chair is under copyright.
The chair is commonly associated with being "cool", "fashion", etc ...

In this case, the whisky brand try to associate it's idea of whisky with the chair (here being cool and fashion, etc ...). So it's a copyright infridgement.


Now let's imagine a man, that stand up, with the same chair in the background.
The chair is a little blurry in the background.

Now, the chair is not primary in the picture, the idea of whisky is dissociate from the chair and it's attributes.

There is no intention of the photog to associate the idea that comes with the chair, and the whisky brand, so no copyright infringement.

If there is no association of the art object and anything else, you can use it. you can also show it on internet. That's why you can found easily images of licence product on the web.

is it clearer ?

[interested_observer]

...
Let's take alcohol add.

Imagine a man that sit in a chair, with a glass of whisky.
The chair is under copyright.
The chair is commonly associated with being "cool", "fashion", etc ...

In this case, the whisky brand try to associate it's idea of whisky with the chair (here being cool and fashion, etc ...). So it's a copyright infridgement.

Wonderful illustration, however a clearer situation would be - I have a the chair sitting in my living room. My wife wants new furniture and we decide to sell the chair. We put a picture of it in the ad to sell the chair. I need to pay a license fee to the copyright holder to sell the chair?

Contrast that to my having a book that I wish to sell. Do I need to pay a fee to the copyright holder to sell the book - NO. Although the publisher of the book would love to make this the situation.

This is where I think that the French Courts have become disassociated with reality. In the case of the chair, its normal to have a picture to show condition or some special feature of your particular chair (its scratched but not too badly). So, is it the expectation that every time a chair changes hands with a image involved (auction catalog, newspaper ad, craigslist posting, etc.) that the copyright holder is able to extract a fee? Also, the span of a copyright is I believe the originator's lifespan plus 70 years. Nice gig if you can get it.....

[JFN]

Wonderful illustration, however a clearer situation would be - I have a the chair sitting in my living room. My wife wants new furniture and we decide to sell the chair. We put a picture of it in the ad to sell the chair. I need to pay a license fee to the copyright holder to sell the chair?

Contrast that to my having a book that I wish to sell. Do I need to pay a fee to the copyright holder to sell the book - NO. Although the publisher of the book would love to make this the situation.

This is where I think that the French Courts have become disassociated with reality. In the case of the chair, its normal to have a picture to show condition or some special feature of your particular chair (its scratched but not too badly). So, is it the expectation that every time a chair changes hands with a image involved (auction catalog, newspaper ad, craigslist posting, etc.) that the copyright holder is able to extract a fee? Also, the span of a copyright is I believe the originator's lifespan plus 70 years. Nice gig if you can get it.....

Or say all those photographers taking pictures of cars and other typical lifestyle items and make a living out of selling them to magazines, image banks etc. this could become totally ridiculous in the end... Just wait until the architects decides to go to court, or clothes designers etc.

[JFN]

Let's take alcohol add.

Imagine a man that sit in a chair, with a glass of whisky.
The chair is under copyright.
The chair is commonly associated with being "cool", "fashion", etc ...

In this case, the whisky brand try to associate it's idea of whisky with the chair (here being cool and fashion, etc ...). So it's a copyright infridgement.

Probably this was the reason to why the creative director decided to spend a fortune to get/rent the chair in the first place... How does this become copyright infridgement? It's not like anyone is copying the chair, imagine if IKEA decides to go the same route... lots of pictures will pretty fast become very simplistic....

[aurele]

You have to pay fees when you want to associate a licenced object (here, a chair) and the things that are usually associated (here, being cool and fashion) with something else that have basically no link with (here, whisky.)

Wonderful illustration, however a clearer situation would be - I have a the chair sitting in my living room. My wife wants new furniture and we decide to sell the chair. We put a picture of it in the ad to sell the chair. I need to pay a license fee to the copyright holder to sell the chair?

No, you won't have copyright fees. When you sell an item throught marketplace, auction, etc ... you take picture of the chair, because you want to sell the chair alone.
Use the chiar to sell whisky and you have fees

In the case of the chair, its normal to have a picture to show condition or some special feature of your particular chair (its scratched but not too badly).

Here, no fees can be asked

Also, the span of a copyright is I believe the originator's lifespan plus 70 years.

indeed.

Fees can only be asked when the pictures are for commercial and business use.

[BigDave]

Fees can only be asked when the pictures are for commercial and business use

But what if I have the item in an "artsy" image and I sell that image, is not this then a business use? My attached image was taken for the light and shadow aspects that were created, the item is only secondary or less to the focus of the image...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/30743-bigdave/albums/2182-revergence/picture39429.html



Regards,

[JFN]

French courts will have an interesting future with many hours of wasted time....

[BigDave]

It is time to become a French intellectual property rights lawyer too!

Regards,