In this judgment, the French Supreme administrative Court, the Conseil d’Etat, confirms the validity of a decision taken on 9 February 2012 by the Commission in charge of setting the compensation for private copying. This decision adopted the new tariffs applicable for recording media subject to the remuneration for private copying, including portable media players, external hard drives, smartphones and tablet computers.
This article was originally published on the Media Institute website – see here. It is reproduced here with the kind permission of the author.
In a previous column for the Media Institute (Feb. 17, 2015), I urged that any copyright reform legislation that emerges from the preparations for “the next great copyright act” should ensure both authors’ attribution and economic interests. The earlier column addressed attribution; this column will consider remuneration, a matter that has lately been the subject of copyright reform in the Netherlands and France as well.
The Anglo-American legal tradition, not generally known for solicitude toward the weaker party in contract negotiations, [...]
In this judgment, the French Supreme Court ruled that an author who is a member of a collecting society may not take action in infringement cases to protect his economic rights, except in the case of a deficiency on the part of said collecting society.
In the same judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that publishing agreements for the assignment of rights of an author must be in writing, and it is not possible to demonstrate the existence of an agreement by reference to the behaviour of the authors as regards the exploitation of the work.
Article L.321-1 paragraph 2 of the French Intellectual Property Code (‘IPC’) provides that collecting societies are entitled to take legal action to defend the rights for which they are responsible under their articles of association (by-laws). Collecting societies may therefore take legal action to defend their repertoires and those of foreign collecting societies that they manage, whether before the civil courts (Supreme Court, 22 March 1988, 86-11874) or the criminal courts (Supreme Court, 25 October 1988, 86-91720). In its judgment of 13 November 2014 (13-22401), the French Supreme Court answered a very important question: do authors who are members of collecting societies retain the [...]
I am happy to announce the release of my book Guide to Copyright in France – Business, Internet and Litigation.
French copyright law is one of the most original and dynamic copyright systems at this time. This book is a practical and straightforward guide to how copyright works in France: protection, ownership, assignment agreements, collective management, and litigation. This guide is divided into six chapters (see table of contents):
Chapter 1 ‘Subsistence of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights’ explains the conditions of protection of works such as photographs, audiovisual works, architecture, conceptual art, computer programmes, videogames, databases, etc. and the conditions of protect [...]
Two Acts of 2007 and 2014 to fight against counterfeiting have modified the French Intellectual Property Code, in order to enable improved compensation for the rightholders as well as better protection of intellectual property rights.
In French intellectual property infringement cases, damages were traditionally supposed to cover the prejudice suffered, no more, no less. Punitive damages were not theoretically possible. However, Acts No. 2007-1544 of 29 October 2007 and No. 2014-315 of 11 March 2014 to strengthen the fight against counterfeiting have modified many aspects of the French Intellectual Property (‘IPC’) with regard to damages and remedies.
Calculation of the damages
In France, search engines using thumbnails are likely to infringe on copyright. On 8 April 2014, a French Senator proposed a Bill to establish compulsory collective management for the reproduction of photographs and images by search engine services.
Thumbnails are reduced-size versions of photographs and images, used by search engines such as Google Images in order to facilitate their recognition and organisation, with links to the websites where the photographs and images are published.
Such reproduction of photographs and other works is likely to constitute fair use under the US Copyright Act of 1976 (see Meng Ding, Perfect 10 v Amazon.com: A Step Toward Copyright’s Tort Law Roots, Berk [...]
Can an auction house transfer the responsibility of paying the resale right royalty from the seller to the buyer?
Directive 2001/84/EC created a resale right (‘droit de suite’) in the EU for the benefit of the author of an original work of art. This resale right is ‘defined as an inalienable right, which cannot be waived, even in advance, to receive a royalty based on the sale price obtained for any resale of the work, subsequent to the first transfer of the work by the author’ (Article 1). The directive was adopted in 2001 but only came into force on 1 January 2010.
Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC states that ‘The royalty shall be payable by the seller’, and that Member St [...]
The Supreme Court maintains its position in a case concerning a Lancôme perfume, stating that ‘copyright only protects creations in their tangible form, so far as this form is identifiable with sufficient precision to permit its communication; whereas the fragrance of a perfume … is not a form that has this characteristic, and therefore cannot be protected by copyright’.
Article L.112-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC) protects ‘the rights of authors in all works of the mind, whatever their kind, form of expression, merit or purpose’, without giving a definition of originality.
French case law has defined originality as the expression of the personality of the autho [...]
In a judgement of 3 July 2013, the French Supreme Court clarifies the time limit for taking action to obtain damages for copyright infringement. Oddly enough, the French Intellectual Property Code provides that civil proceedings for infringement for designs and models (article L.521-3), patents (article L.615-8) and trade marks (article L.716-5) shall be barred after 3 years, but is silent about copyright and neighbouring rights actions.
In 1979, the singer of the song Just Because Of You, recorded to be synchron [...]