Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/France
It seems there is a clear misunderstanding, the sentence "(...) saying that a quite artistic picture of two fish on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal could not be protected by French law" is not good. As per the source given [1], the trial that took place was about an idea. Explanation: a photographer is paid by a municipality to take a photo of fishes, this is a photo of two fishes in a yellow plate, but the municipality in a publication use a different photo taken by another photographer but showing the same idea "two fishes in a yellow plate". This is a completely different and new photo but the former photographer complained that "his idea" was stolen. He won a first time and subsequently lose. In no way a french court said that one of those photos was not under copyright protection. It have only been said that the second photo is not a derivative work of the first photo. I'm waiting a bit to see if somewant want to say something but I'm going to change the text of our page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I found the last appeal by the complainant photographer rejected by the court of cassation [2]. The first judges in the former trial qualified the photo as "work of the mind" therefore protectable, and the second photo have been qualified as derivative work. This decision have been cancelled in appeal and this cancellation confirmed in cassation. Note that the photos are two different photos and IMO the first judges wrongly protected an idea/concept: "2 fishes specially arranged in a plate with a special color, ect...". Let me explain, it is like if the first judges said this photo is a derivative work of this photo, simply because "this is fish and pieces of lemons in a blue and white oval dish". In appeal the other judges cancelled, IMO hopfully, the decision saying the former photo was a work of the mind, because the complainant did not explain why a "photo of two fish in a Provencal plate would come from a creative activity revealing his personality ". Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Anyway this is clearly a very specific and particular case and I don't think it should be used to describe the threshold of originality of France. Furthermore it is to be put in perspective with the request of the complainant who wanted a photo different from his own to be considered as a derivative work. And finally the judges made justice and found a way to say "no", and I think that by sayingthe former photo is not a "work of the mind" they simply cancell the first decision. Christian Ferrer (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I found the last appeal by the complainant photographer rejected by the court of cassation [2]. The first judges in the former trial qualified the photo as "work of the mind" therefore protectable, and the second photo have been qualified as derivative work. This decision have been cancelled in appeal and this cancellation confirmed in cassation. Note that the photos are two different photos and IMO the first judges wrongly protected an idea/concept: "2 fishes specially arranged in a plate with a special color, ect...". Let me explain, it is like if the first judges said this photo is a derivative work of this photo, simply because "this is fish and pieces of lemons in a blue and white oval dish". In appeal the other judges cancelled, IMO hopfully, the decision saying the former photo was a work of the mind, because the complainant did not explain why a "photo of two fish in a Provencal plate would come from a creative activity revealing his personality ". Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Une exception de la règle du terme le plus court pour les œuvres américaines en France ?
[edit]Au cours de mes recherches pour mon article sur le blog WMF à l'occasion de la journée du domaine public le 1 janvier, j'ai découvert qu'à cause d'un accord conclu en 1892 entre l'Allemagne et les États-Unis (de:), la loi allemande n'applique pas la règle du terme le plus court à (certaines) œuvres américaines.
Le résultat de cette loi ancienne est que le film Disney Steamboat Willie de 1928, même s’il est récemment entré dans le domaine public dans les États-Unis, reste protégé en Allemagne. (de:)
La même situation pourrait exister en France a cause d'un accord similaire ? Veuillez répondre ici. Merci beaucoup et joyeuses Pâques, --Gnom (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)