Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Copyright rules of France
Flag of France
Map of France
Durations
Standard Life + 70 years
Anonymous Publish + 70 years
Posthumous Publish + 25 years
Other
Terms run to year end Yes
Common licence tags {{PD-France}}
{{PD-old-auto}}
{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}
{{PD-EU-unpublished}}
{{PD-BnFMandragorePic}}
{{PD-GallicaScan}}
Treaties
Berne convention 5 December 1887
WTO member 1 January 1995
URAA restoration date 1 January 1996
WIPO treaty 14 March 2010

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of France relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in France must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both France and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from France, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

France has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the WIPO treaty since 14 March 2010 and the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995, as well as a signatory to various other international treaties.[1] As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Intellectual Property Code (consolidated version as of September 7, 2018) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of France.[1] WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2]

Summary

  • Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years, (except posthumous works, musical works,[3] and works whose author "died for France", which are protected for an additional 30 years)
  • Anonymous works: 70 years after publication (if author never disclosed)
  • Posthumous works: 25 years from publication
  • Government works: no except video, text and graphics published on the site gouvernement.fr (Please use {{Gouvernement.fr}})

General

The relevant laws are in the first book of the Code of Intellectual Property, or CPI (English version). The code includes dispositions transposed from the 1993 European directive on Copyright. France also enforces the Berne Convention.

The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the end of the year of death of the author (or the death of the last author for multiple authors); if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, it is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves). This applies only if publication occurs within 70 years of creation (see Article L132-3).

See below for important extensions to copyright.

Images from public web sites

Note that French government services often use professional photographers who are not government employees to make official photographs. These photographers then typically sell usage rights of the photograph to the government. In such circumstances, the government does not own the copyright to the photograph, and thus could not give us a license to use it even if it wanted to.

The rules for protection of works by the government are somewhat fuzzy, and one should assume by default that anything from a government entity is copyrighted. One should refer to:

Laws, decrees, court decisions and other similar government texts (but not the translations or commentaries thereof), possibly found on Légifrance, are in the public domain. This seems acknowledged by Légifrance's copyright terms.

Unless you really know what you're doing, please abstain from copying photos from French government web sites to Commons. Thanks.

Gouvernement.fr

Video, text and graphics published on the site gouvernement.fr are licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0 FR). Be careful, this does not apply to photographs, however, it is possible to import images taken from videos. Please use {{Gouvernement.fr}}

Wartime copyright extensions

On February 27, 2007, the Court of Cassation, supreme jurisdiction, first civil chamber, ruled in the Hazan case (arrêt n° 280 du 27 février 2007) that articles L123-8 and L123-9, extending the duration of protection to compensate for wartimes, were not applicable to works for which an extended protection period (beyond 70 years) had not started to elapse on July 1, 1995.[4][5]. The judgment regarding Giovanni Boldini's work was broke too, by the same court : [6].

In practice, only subsist extensions for authors "Mort pour la France", but even this is subject to debate.

Previously, French law granted extensions to copyright because of the World Wars (see CPI L123-8 and following). The extensions were:

  • 6 years and 152 days for World War I
  • 8 years and 120 days for World War II
  • 30 years for people who died for France ; this includes, for instance, Alain-Fournier (1 January 1915 +50+30+6+8 years +152+120 days = 30 September 2009), Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Jehan Alain.

Several extensions were added together.

It was previously assumed that the European directive on copyright did not necessarily suppress these extensions:

Article 10 - Where a term of protection, which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive, is already running in a Member State on the date referred to in Article 13 (1), this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.

According to the French Ministry of Culture, the legal status of these extensions, adopted when copyright was 50 years after death, was unclear in the context of the new 70-year law; the Ministry called for erring on the side of caution and assuming they are valid. [7]

It was also assumed that copyright holders do try to enforce these extensions. In 2005, right holders demanded payment for a movie where a character whistled The Internationale, whose author died in 1932. (See also Template:PD-Internationale for further information.) On the other hand, the Paris Appeal Court ruled against applying the extensions in 2004 [8], but on 12 October 2005, another section of the same court applied the extension so that the works of the painter Giovanni Boldini who died in 1931 will not enter the public domain before late 2016 [9].

Works of arts, including architecture, exhibited in public spaces

The architect of a notable building owns copyright over the representations of that building, including postcards and photographs. For instance, the architect of the pyramid in the courtyard of the Louvre Museum may claim copyright over images of the pyramid. This, for instance, extends to the designer of lighting systems; for instance, the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night.

However, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaŭx plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public

The court draws a distinction between depictions of a work of art, and depictions of whole settings of which the work of art is a mere part, and denies the right of the artist over such images.

While architects may have rights to works derived from their work of art, this is not the case of the owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a May 7, 2004 ruling by the Court of Cassation was:

The owner of a thing does not have an exclusive right over the image of this thing; he or she can however oppose the usage of this image by a third party if this usage results in an abnormal disturbance to him or her."

In this decision, the court excluded that the owner of a hotel, who had made extensive repairs and enhancements to the buildings at high costs, could claim exclusive rights to the image of that hotel: merely demonstrating that the costs supported did not demonstrate that the publishing of images was an abnormal disturbance.

The Court already ruled on June 5, 2003, that the right of property comprised absolutely no right to the image of this property. However, they also upheld the right to privacy of the homeowners: in this case, not only a photograph of a house was published, but also its exact location and the name of the owners. Earlier rulings (May 2, 2001) similarly rejected requests based on ownership without a justification of an abnormal disturbance.

Miscellaneous

Copyright tags

See also Commons:Copyright tags

  • {{PD-BnFMandragorePic}} – for digitized version of old images from the mandragore database at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France
  • {{PD-GallicaScan}} – for digitized version of old books from the Gallica library at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France
  • {{PD-JORF}} – for French official legal texts as published in the Journal officiel de la République Française (or reprinted on Légifrance; note: not all texts on Légifrance are out-of-copyright, many others are copyrighted under free licenses, and sometimes under unfree licenses).
  • {{PD-JORF-nor-conso}} – with NOR (identification number) and index of the updated text.

Currency

See also Commons:Currency

✓OK Regarding former French currency (francs), case law states that copyright exists, but is paralysed by the ‘allocation to the general interest and character of public service’ of currency. See, for instance, Cour de Cassation 5 February 2002[4][5].

Please use {{Money-FR}}.

De minimis

See also Commons:De minimis

De minimis example

This photograph was taken in France, but is not a copyright violation since it is of the entire plaza, and not just the Louvre Pyramid.
The white triangle in this derivative work covers the copyright protected region of the top image.

Civil Law countries may not apply the de minimis principle as set out above, but often have some alternative legal mechanism whereby similar trivial infringements can be ignored. For photographs taken in public places this may be done as part of the rules relating to Freedom of panorama. For example, French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public
(...)Attendu qu’ayant relevé que, telle que figurant dans les vues en cause, l’oeuvre de MM. X... et Z... se fondait dans l’ensemble architectural de la place des Terreaux dont elle constituait un simple élément, la cour d’appel en a exactement déduit qu’une telle présentation de l’oeuvre litigieuse était accessoire au sujet traité, résidant dans la représentation de la place, de sorte qu’elle ne réalisait pas la communication de cette oeuvre au public (...)

French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

Can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief, and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens—but used as an element of the setting (« Constitue une représentation illicite d'une statue de Maillol la diffusion d'un film publicitaire dans laquelle elle figure, alors qu'elle a été utilisée, non pas dans une séquence tournée en décor naturel, ce qui justifierait une apparition fugace de la sculpture, placée dans le jardin des Tuileries, totalement accessoire au sujet traité, mais comme un élément du décor. »).

Freedom of panorama

See also Commons:Freedom of panorama

X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-France}}

Please tag France no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:French FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

On October 7 2016, the French parliament approved a law recognizing a limited version of the freedom of panorama that authorizes the reproduction by individuals (not organizations) of buildings and sculptures permanently located in public space, but only for non-commercial utilizations.[6][7][8]

« les reproductions et représentations d’œuvres architecturales et de sculptures, placées en permanence sur la voie publique, réalisées par des personnes physiques, à l’exclusion de tout usage à caractère commercial. »

Part of the text added in June 2016 to article L. 122 5 of the Intellectual Property Code

A court recently (TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren & a. c/ Tassin & a.[9][10]) emphasized that "droit d'auteur unquestionably applies to the reproduction of artworks placed in public space" (« le droit d'auteur s'étend incontestablement à la reproduction de l'œuvre installée dans un espace public »). Concerning buildings, case law defines several criteria for originality:

  • "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »), as opposed to the building being purely functional, and not being part of a series (as is the case in housing development) (CA Riom, 26 May 1966) [ this decision has been criticised as the law explicitly states copyright protection is granted regardless of merit, art.L.112-1 of the French copyright act but another decision of French supreme court concludes on 20 october 2011 that creation must be original as required by art 111-1 of French copyright act and that it is up to appeal court to decide if it is original work or not [11] ]
  • a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979)
  • an “esthetic preoccupation ”, here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about en:La Géode)
  • a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof)
  • Works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical [10].
  • Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13) [11] at the Wayback Machine (archived on 11 January 2014)
  • It is up to the author or an architectural, art or picture work to prove that it is original and not just application of a technical knowledge [12]

Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of art installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public

Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

Can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief, and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens—but used as an element of the setting (« Constitue une représentation illicite d'une statue de Maillol la diffusion d'un film publicitaire dans laquelle elle figure, alors qu'elle a été utilisée, non pas dans une séquence tournée en décor naturel, ce qui justifierait une apparition fugace de la sculpture, placée dans le jardin des Tuileries, totalement accessoire au sujet traité, mais comme un élément du décor. »).

Courts are traditionally lenient with pictures showing urban landscapes, cf. Tour Montparnasse, C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980.[13]

  • Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

If the subject of the picture is either a building or an architectural artwork, and if the picture is already used on the French-speaking Wikipedia, w:fr:Utilisateur:Le plus bot can transfer the picture from Commons to this local Wikipedia under a local exception, as voted by the community in 2006 and 2011 (see w:fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur#Exceptions).

  • This minimal exception is only for the illustration of the most directly related article in French Wikipedia (this illustration is not usable elsewhere), or outside French Wikipedia.
  • Their licencing terms must not permit their extension to derivated works (for example, sales of these pictures is not authorized, as well as offline republication or online republication via external proxies and agregators)
  • The copyrighted protection must be stated explicitly in their description page, with relevant licencing templates tracking usage of these images in French Wikipedia.
  • The image description page will also display the full list of local pages (most often only one) embedding for their illustration a very limited number of such medias (images in galeries showing all artistic and creative aspect of the same copyrighted subject should not be integrated in these French Wikipedia articles: generally a single illustration is enough). These images should not be integrated in templates reusable in an unbound number of pages.
  • Most free images currently hosted on French Wikipedia should be transfered to Commons, so that French Wikipedia will only host non-free copyrighted materials subject to these restrictions: this will allow remote proxies or Wikipedia contents aggregators, or other linguistic editions of Wikipedia to block these images, even if they display the rest of articles embedding these non-free illustration images, only by looking at the prefix of their URL on the image servers (instead of displaying these images, they can display only their textual description with a direct link to the French Wikipedia article showing these images covered by this exception).
  • Do not transfer these non-free images currently hosted by French Wikipedia (including corporate logos unless they are accessory to the rest of the image and unavoidable) to any other editions of Wikipedia or to other Wikimedia sites (including Commons, as stated by licencing templates shown in their description pages in French Wikipedia).
  • Even if these non-free images are now tolerated in French Wikipedia articles, the legitimate copyright holders can send their veto so that these images will be deleted on French Wikipedia too. The same deletion will occur when receiving a French court order: their long-term presence is not warranted as long as the copyright protection persists.

Stamps

See also Commons:Stamps/Public domain

Copyrighted

This document, published on a website of La Poste, explains that French stamps have the same legal status as any other work of art. Stamps by designers deceased more than 70 years ago (plus years of war) are public domain.

The names of the artists are generally printed at the bottom of the stamps or its main picture. Check the individual artists death dates in the frwiki category: Dessinateur de timbres/Stamp designers and also the French Phil-ouest website that lists many more than have wiki articles.

On 1st January 2015, it appears that all postage stamps of France issued until 1922 are in the public domain (doubts about the 1919 stamp known as "The Two Orphans" - cause: no information found on the date of death of Surand and Jarraud).

The following list is non-exhaustive :

Name Born Died Public domain status
Artists whose works are in public domain because they died before 31 December 1945.
Barre, Jacques-Jean 1793 1855 public domain
Delacroix, Ferdinand Victor Eugène 1798 1863 public domain
Barre, Désiré-Albert 1818 1878 public domain
Merwart, Paul 1855 1902 public domain
Blanc, Joseph 1846 1904 public domain
Dubois, Alphée 1831 1905 public domain
Sage, Jules-Auguste 1840 1910 public domain
Roty, Oscar 1846 1911 public domain
Mouchon, Louis-Eugène 1843 1914 public domain
Nézière, Georges de la 1878 1914 public domain
Puyplat, Jules-Jacques 1843 1915 public domain
Froment, Eugène 1844 1916 public domain
Merson, Luc-Olivier 1846 1920 public domain
Thévenin, Auguste 1856 1921 public domain
Dumoulin, Louis 1860 1924 public domain
Ruffé, Léon 1864 1935 public domain
Mignon, Justin Abel Francois Xaviér 1861 1936 public domain
Dezarrois, Antoine 1864 1939 domaine public
Gandon, Gaston 1872 1941 public domain
Delzers, Jean Antonin 1873 1943 public domain
Degorce, Georges Léo 1894 1943 public domain
Nézière, Joseph de La 1873 1944 public domain
Grégoire, René 1871 1945 public domain
Prudhomme, George Henri 1873 1947 public domain
...and any artist dead before 31 December 1945.
Name Born Died Public domain status
Rights reserved; their works will be in public domain on 1 January following 70 years after their death
Cortot, Henri 1892 1950 see this 2022
Ouvré, Achille 1872 1951 2022
Hourriez, Georges 1878 c1952
see this and this
c2023
Dulac, Edmond 1882 1953 2024
Nézière, Raymond de la 1865 1953 2024
Barlangue, Gabriel Antoine 1874 1956 2027
Dufresne, Charles Paul 1885 1956 2027
Lemasson, Henri 1870 1956 2027
Cheffer, Henry 1880 1957 2028
Munier, Pierre 1889 1962 2033
Cocteau, Jean 1889 1963 2034
Mazelin, Charles 1882 1964 2035
Louis, Robert 1902 1965 2036
Serres, Raoul 1881 1971 2042
Cami, Robert 1900 1973 2044
Lemagny, Paul Pierre 1905 1977 2048
Spitz, André 1883 1977 2048
Piel, Jules 1882 1978 2049
Picart Le Doux, Jean 1902 1982 2053
Monvoisin, Michel 193 1982 2053
Miró, Joan 1893 1983 2054
Fernez Louis 1900 1984 2055
Decaris, Albert 1901 1988 2059
Delpech, Jean 1916 1988 2059
Haley, Claude 1923 1988 2059
Gandon, Pierre 1899 1990 2061
Pheulpin, Jean 1907 1991 2062
Cottet, René 1902 1992 2063
Combet, Jacque 1920 1993 2064
Peynet, Raymond 1908 1999 2070
Hundertwasser, Friedensreich 1928 2000 2071
Leguay, Marc 1910 2001 2072
Durrens, Claude 1921 2002 2073
Hertenberger, Claude 1912 2002 2073
Bridoux, Charles 1942 2003 2074
Dessirier, René 1919 2003 2074 [14]
Guillame, Cécile 1933 2004 2075
Folon, Jean-Michel 1934 2005 2076
Forget, Pierre 1923 2005 2076
Lacaque, Eugène 1914 2005 2076
Słania, Czesław 1921 2005 2076
Schach-Duc, Yvonne 1933 2009 2080
Saison, Huguette 1929 2011 2082
Mathieu, Georges 1921 2012 2083
Béquet, Pierre 1932 2012 2083
Leliepvre, Eugène 1908 2013 2084
Wou-Ki, Zao 1920 2013 2084
Markó, Serge 1926 2014 2085
Taraskoff, Mark 1955 2015 2086
Quillivic, René 1925 2016 2087
Andréotto, Claude 1949 2017 2088
Any living artists or artists deceased less than 70 years ago : rights reserved
  • Feltesse, Émile Henri - born 1881? - unknown death date - likely copyright until at least 2040 or later.

Threshold of originality

See also Commons:Threshold of originality

Unlike the "creativity" doctrine in the US and Germany, or the "sweat of the brow" doctrine in the UK, French law asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author."[15] In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown. For an art exhibition, a man placed the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door of the old dormitory of alcoholics at a psychiatric facility, and termed it artwork; the French courts agreed with him that it was copyrightable based on the aesthetic choices made ("affixing the word 'paradise' in gold with patina effect and a special graphics on dilapidated door, the lock-shaped cross, encased in a crumbling wall with peeling paint"). (Direct link to the work in question)

France has "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works".[16]

A decision from Supreme court on October 2011 agreed with appeal court decision saying that a quite artistic picture of two fish on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal (see [12]) could not be protected by French law because of lack of originality. According to this decision, level of originality required by this appeal court is very high. This decision was criticized but French supreme court doesn't control facts but only controls interpretation of the law.

These are X mark.svg Not OK:

Citations

  1. a b France: WIPO Lex, 2018
  2. Intellectual Property Code, 2018
  3. wartime copyright extensions may apply to musical works: + 6 years 152 days for musical work published through 1920 (Art. L123-8); + 8 years and 120 days for musical work published through 1947 (Art. L123-9); these extensions are cumulative with each other and with the "died for France" extension: [1]
  4. Manara, Cedric, La Nouvelle « Exception De Panorama ». Gros Plan Sur L’Article L. 122-5 10° Du Code Français De La Propriété Intellectuelle (The New 'Panorama Exception' in French Copyright Law) (August 20, 2016). Forthcoming, Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel, 2016. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2828355
  5. Next Impact : les 15 mesures de la loi numérique
  6. Marc Rees, Loi Numérique : la liberté de panorama limitée, mais consacrée, NextImpact, 30 June 2016
  7. Court decision : TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren et a. c/ Tassin et a.
  8. court reasoning (french; pdf; 12,5MB)
  9. https://blog.droit-et-photographie.com/originalite-bouillabaisse-et-contrefacon/ counterfeating a picture of a Marseille meal
  10. https://blog.droit-et-photographie.com/originalite-bouillabaisse-et-contrefacon/ Appel court of Aix en Provence confirmed by Supreme court 20 october 2011 : rappele que « l’originalité s’entend du reflet de la personnalité de l’auteur ou de la révélation d’un talent créateur » . que « l’originalité ne se confond pas avec la compétence professionnelle« En d’autres termes, la simple notoriété et compétence d’un photographe ne fait pas de chacune de ses créations une œuvre originale susceptible de protection . que le photographe ne rapportait pas à suffisance la preuve d’une « activité créatrice révélant sa personnalité, nonobstant la position en arc de cercle des poissons et l’angle de prise de vue utilisé« , avant de considérer, sur le plan technique que « ce cliché n’est révélateur d’aucune recherche dans les éclairages adéquats, la tonalité des fonds, l’environnement mobilier et les angles de prise de vue. Il ne constitue ainsi qu’une prestation de services techniques ne traduisant qu’un savoir faire. »
  11. « s’agissant d’un élément d’un ensemble architectural qui constitue le cadre de vie de nombreux habitants d’un quartier de Paris (…), le droit à protection cesse lorsque l’œuvre en question est reproduite non pas en tant qu’œuvre d’art, mais par nécessité, au cours d’une prise de vue dans un lieu public ; sur la carte postale litigieuse, la Tour Montparnasse n’a pas été photographiée isolément mais dans son cadre naturel qui ne fait l’objet d’aucune protection. » Source: [2].
  12. [3]
  13. http://m2bde.u-paris10.fr/content/le-concept-d%E2%80%99originalit%C3%A9-dans-la-l%C3%A9gislation-fran%C3%A7aise-du-droit-d%E2%80%99auteur-et-dans-celle-du-co
  14. Mathilde Pavis (University of Exeter), 2015.

Sources

  • France Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)[13], WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization, 2018
  • Intellectual Property Code (consolidated version as of September 7, 2018)[14], France, 2018
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely.