Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v. Datel Design and Development Ltd (Case C-159/23)

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus04/02/2025

On October 17, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a pivotal judgment in the case of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v. Datel Design and Development Ltd (Case C-159/23). This decision addresses the extent of copyright protection for computer programs under Directive 2009/24/EC, particularly concerning software that modifies variable data during program execution without altering the program’s source or object code.

Background of the case

Sony, a leading developer and distributor of PlayStation consoles and associated video games, initiated legal proceedings against Datel, a company specializing in software and devices that interact with gaming consoles. It identified that Datel was marketing products such as the “Action Replay PSP” software and the “TiltFX” device. These products allowed users to alter gameplay by unlocking features or modifying controls, achieved by running concurrently with Sony’s games and altering variable data in the console’s random access memory (RAM) during execution. Sony contended that such modifications infringed upon its exclusive rights to authorize alterations of its computer programs, as protected under Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs.

Legal questions referred to the CJEU: Analysis and judgment

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) referred two primary questions to the CJEU:

Scope of Protection: Does the modification of variables transferred to a computer’s RAM by a protected program, without altering its source or object code, fall within the protection afforded under Article 1(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/24/EC?
Definition of Alteration: Does such modification constitute an “alteration” under Article 4(1)(b) of the Directive, which grants the copyright holder exclusive rights to authorize or prohibit any alteration of their computer program?

In its deliberation, the CJEU focused on the interpretation of “forms of expression” of a computer program as protected under Article 1 of Directive 2009/24/EC. The Court emphasized that protection extends to the program’s source code and object code, as these are the expressions that enable the reproduction or subsequent creation of the program. Conversely, elements such as functionalities, programming languages, and data file formats do not constitute protected forms of expression.

The Court concluded that the content of variable data inserted by a program into a computer’s RAM during execution does not fall within the protection conferred by the Directive, provided that such content does not enable the reproduction or subsequent creation of the program. Consequently, modifying these variables without altering the source or object code does not constitute an infringement of the copyright holder’s exclusive rights under Article 4(1)(b).

Implications of the decision

This judgment delineates the boundaries of copyright protection for computer programs within the EU, clarifying that:

Variable Data vs. Source Code: Alterations to variable data during program execution, which do not impact the source or object code, are outside the scope of protection under Directive 2009/24/EC.
Functional Modifications: Software that interacts with existing programs by modifying runtime variables, without altering the program’s code, does not infringe upon the exclusive rights of the original program’s copyright holder.

This decision has significant ramifications for developers of ancillary software, such as game enhancement tools or customization applications, affirming that certain modifications at the execution level are permissible under EU copyright law.

Conclusion

The CJEU’s ruling in Case C-159/23 provides critical guidance on the interpretation of copyright protection for computer programs, particularly concerning the distinction between protected forms of expression and permissible modifications during program execution. This clarification is essential for both software developers and rights holders in understanding the legal parameters of program modification and the scope of intellectual property rights within the European Union.

At the Dreyfus firm, we bring expertise across all areas of intellectual property, including copyright law, to provide you with the highest level of guidance and protection for your rights and innovations.

The Dreyfus firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property specialists.

Follow us on social media!

Written by Dreyfus24/06/2024

In an emblematic decision that underscores the complex relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright laws, the Municipal Court of Prague has set a precedent with potential far-reaching implications. This decision, one of the first of its kind in Europe, determined that an image generated by the AI tool DALL-E could not be copyrighted because it was not created by a natural person.

Background of the case

The case involved an unnamed claimant who used OpenAI’s DALL-E to generate an image for their website, with the prompt : “Create a visual representation of two parties signing a business contract in a formal setting, such as a conference room or a law firm office in Prague. Show only hands.” After the image was created and posted on the website, it was copied by a local law firm and used on their own website, presumably to illustrate a publication or message.

The claimant sought legal redress for copyright infringement, asserting authorship of the AI-generated image and requesting injunctive relief against the defendant.

Analysis of the decision

The crux of the court’s deliberation centered on the issue of authorship and whether an AI could be recognized as the author of a copyright work under existing legal frameworks. The Czech Copyright Act, particularly Article 40, recognizes the rights of the author, including the ability to challenge unauthorized use of their works. However, Article 5(1) of the Act specifies that the author is “the natural person who created the work.”

In this instance, while the claimant argued that the image was created under their instruction and thus, they were the rightful author, the court noted that the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim beyond their own testimony. Therefore, the claimant failed to meet the necessary burden of proof for establishing authorship and lacked the legal standing to pursue the claim.

Moreover, the court observed that the image, being the product of an Artificial Intelligence, did not fulfill the criteria of a work resulting from the creative activity of a natural person as required by the Act. Consequently, the image was not eligible for copyright protection.

Commentary

This ruling is not entirely unexpected given the current legal standards, but it does highlight several key considerations for the future of AI in creative domains. The court did not entirely dismiss the possibility that the plaintiff could be considered the author if sufficient evidence were presented. This opens up discussions on what could constitute sufficient evidence and the level of human involvement necessary for AI-generated works to qualify for copyright protection.

As AI technology continues to evolve and integrate more deeply into creative and commercial practices, this case sets a significant precedent. It emphasizes the necessity for artists, businesses, and legal professionals to consider alternative forms of protection, such as contracts, to safeguard their interests.

The decision also serves as a reminder of the urgent need for legislative bodies to revisit and possibly revise copyright laws to better accommodate the realities of AI-driven creativity. This is especially pertinent in Europe, where the integration of AI in various sectors is accelerating, necessitating clear legal frameworks that recognize and protect the contributions of both human and technological creations.

Dreyfus Lawfirm can offer expertise on Copyright and AI matters.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn

Instagram

Written by Dreyfus29/03/2023

In a world where the lines between different artistic disciplines are becoming increasingly blurred, fashion designers often draw inspiration from art to bring their collections to life or to promote their brands.

This issue echoes the recent dispute between the brand Zadig&Voltaire and artist Julian Charriere over a promotional video for the brand that features a flaming fountain, similar to the one captured by the artist in his “And Beneath it all Flows Liquid Fire” video in 2019.

Many fashion designers are inspired by works of art to create their collections and advertising campaigns. However, some of them cross the line and copy the work of established artists almost exactly, without giving them the credit they deserve. This practice is not only ethically questionable, but can can also be harmful to the original artists in terms of violating their intellectual property (“IP”) rights.

Legal issues of intellectual property in fashion and art

Copyrighting protects original works of the mind, whether they are literary, musical, graphic, plastic or photographic creations. Fashion designers may be tempted to take inspiration from a work of art to design a new piece or an advertising campaign, but it is essential to consider the legal issues related to IP.

Plagiarism, or mindless copying of a work, is a violation of copyright. In the case of fashion, it can mean using a work of art without permission to create prints, patterns or even the shape of a garment. If the copying is obvious, the original artist can sue for damages.

The fine line between fashion and art is even more blurred as many luxury brands have launched their own art foundations such as the Cartier Foundation or the Louis Vuitton Foundation.

However, it is important to note that copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression. Thus, taking inspiration from a work of art in order to create a fashion piece is not necessarily illegal, so long as the creation is suitably original and does not directly copy the work in question. Additionally, some artists occasionally can collaborate with fashion designers, such as Louis Vuitton, who recently worked with Japanese artist Yakoi Kusuma to produce a new collection as well as to transform the Louis Vuitton store in Paris, now decorated with a monumental silhouette of the artist.

Consequences of intellectual property infringement

IP infringement can have negative consequences for artists and the fashion industry.

Plagiarism robs original artists of recognition and fair compensation for their work. When a piece of work is copied without permission, the original artist is not credited or paid for their work. This can lead to a loss of income for artists, causing them to abandon their creative work or settle for less than their talent.

In addition, intellectual property infringement hinders innovation in the creative industry. When artists are not rewarded for their work, it can discourage innovation and the creation of new works. Companies that copy original works do not need to devote resources to research and development of new ideas, as they can simply copy those of others.

Finally, intellectual property infringement can have a negative impact on the brand image of companies that engage in this practice. Consumers are increasingly aware of the importance of ethics and corporate social responsibility. When a company is accused of plagiarism or intellectual property infringement, it can damage its brand image and consumer confidence in the company.

In summation, the phenomenon of plagiarism of art by fashion raises complex questions and considerable stakes, both artistically and legally. The line between inspiration and copying can sometimes be unclear, and the fashion industry seems to navigate these murky waters in search of creativity and innovation.

While some see this appropriation as a democratization of art and a way to enrich fashion, others see them as a threat to the value and integrity of original works. At a time when legislation is struggling to adapt to these issues, it is the responsibility of fashion designers and consumers to commit to ethical fashion that respects art and its creators.

It is critical to continue the dialogue between the different actors involved and to rethink the mechanisms of intellectual property protection to ensure a fair balance between creative freedom and respect for copyright. Creators, as well as artists, can call upon professionals such as Industrial Property Attorneys, with their networks of lawyers specialized in intellectual property, to ensure that no IP rights are infringed upon.

We offer our clients a dedicated and unique experience of expertise that is necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets. We will also endeavor to keep you informed and up-to-date about intellectual property and digital economic issues through our articles and newsletters written by the Dreyfus Legal Team.

This article is current as of the date of its publication and does not necessarily reflect the present state of the law or relevant regulation.

Written by Dreyfus13/03/2023

Intellectual property (IP) litigation is an important tool for protecting and enforcing rights in IP assets, such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights. When an IP owner’s rights are infringed or someone else is using their IP without permission, the owner may have the right to take legal action against the offender. IP litigation can help the owner to protect their valuable IP assets, as well as their reputation and market position.

The benefits of IP litigation include:

1. Protection of IP Rights IP litigation is an effective way to protect your IP assets from infringement. It allows you to enforce your IP rights and stop unauthorized use of your IP, while also deterring future infringers. By filing a lawsuit, you can also seek damages or other relief to make up for any losses caused by the infringement.

2. Strengthening of IP Rights Through the process of IP litigation, you can also strengthen your IP rights. This is because the court may issue an injunction that requires the infringing party to stop using your IP or to pay you for any profits they made from using your IP. This can help to bolster your IP rights and make it more difficult for others to infringe on them in the future.

3. Deterrence of Unlawful Use The threat of IP litigation can also act as a deterrent to others who may be considering using your IP without permission. By demonstrating that you are willing to take legal action to protect your IP rights, you can create a deterrent effect that can help to discourage others from infringing on your IP.

4. Valuable Legal Remedies IP litigation can also provide you with valuable legal remedies that can help you to recover the costs of defending your IP rights. In some cases, you may be able to recover damages or other relief to compensate you for any losses caused by the infringement.

In addition to these benefits, IP litigation can also provide you with a sense of satisfaction that you are protecting your IP rights and standing up for what is right. It can be a powerful way to make sure that your IP is respected and protected. So how can you make the most of IP litigation? Here are a few tips:

1. Understand Your IP Rights The first step to making the most of IP litigation is to understand your IP rights. You should be familiar with the different types of IP protection and what rights they provide, as well as any related laws or regulations. This will help you to identify potential infringements and determine whether or not you have the right to take legal action.

2. Seek Professional Advice It is also important to seek professional advice when it comes to IP litigation. An experienced IP lawyer can provide you with guidance on your legal rights and remedies, as well as help you to pursue a successful legal action.

3. Take Action Quickly Acting quickly is key when it comes to IP litigation. You should take action as soon as you become aware of a potential infringement, as the longer you wait, the more difficult it may be to prove your case.

4. Gather Evidence The more evidence you have to support your case, the stronger it will be. This means gathering evidence such as documents, emails, and other records that show the infringement occurred.

By following these tips, you can make the most of IP litigation and protect your valuable IP rights.

Written by Dreyfus08/12/2022

Over the past decade, the architecture, engineering, construction and Operations (AECO) industry has undergone several developments, particularly in the area of information technology. Building Information Modelling (BIM) is now globally considered a better solution to enormous building problems, which made a huge effect on the building and construction industry. The industry is facing a practical challenge in protecting design when conflict arises between owner’s and architect’s proprietary rights.

“We shape our buildings ; thereafter they shape us.” – Winston Churchill

There was a time when pencil, paper and complex drawing were the base of construction planning, creating a tiring process with lots of loopholes. However, things have changed. It is now all about Building Information Modelling (BIM) which has been part of the construction industry for some time now. It connects the AECO professionals to design, build and operate infrastructure more efficiently. It is more than just 2D or 3D modelling. It is the process of designing a building collaboratively using one cohort system of computer models rather than as a separate set of drawings.

So, what does make BIM so exciting?

It provides insights into design constructability, reduces errors, and improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction phase. It can help owners in predictive maintenance, asset tracking and facilities management for future changes and renovation work. It does not solely refer to buildings, but to all sectors that have to do with construction, including roads, railways, utilities, bridges, tunnels, structures, architecture, topography, etc. BIM can be classified into different levels.

Where does intellectual property come into this conversation?

Let’s take a situation- an architect draws a design plan for the construction of a cafeteria. The contractor executes the work as per plan. However, the owner decides to reuse the design with some small changes for a second cafeteria. In such a case, apart from monetary consideration for services of design, does the architect have any other rights? Can he stop the owner from making changes to the design suggested by him? The answer to all such questions lies in Copyright and Design Law.

BIM models created in the tendering process before the award of the contract will not usually be registered. Therefore, BIM models cannot be protected by Design Law. Article 10 of Directive 98/71/EC, provides that the protection of designs is subject to their registration. However, unregistered designs can be covered by copyright under the concept of artistic work although EU Member States differ in how national copyright law protects unregistered designs. For instance, the French Intellectual Property Code (Code de la propriété intellectuelle) article L112-2.7, and the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright 2014, Consolidated Act No 1144 of 23 October 2014 (Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret (LBK nr 1144 of 23/10/2014)) in section 1.1, all list works of architecture under copyright law.

Determining the ownership of IP rights over the BIM model and its elements is necessary to determine the lawful exercise of ownership. Generally, an owner of a model is granted exclusive right regarding the use of Intellectual Property, and consequently to copy and disclose it as it wishes. In BIM Level 3, however, the authors of the model are regularly indistinguishable. However, if the contracting authorities are services of design, does the architect have any other rights ? Can he stop the owner from making changes to the design suggested by him ? The answer to all such questions lies in Copyright and Design Law.

Determining the ownership of IP rights over the BIM model and its elements is necessary to determine the lawful exercise of ownership. Generally, an owner of a model is granted exclusive right regarding the use of Intellectual Property, and consequently to copy and disclose it as it wishes. In BIM Level 3, however, the authors of the model are regularly indistinguishable. However, if the contracting authorities are to be granted ownership of a BIM model jointly with a tenderer or winner, exercising their right by disclosing it to a third party would be contrary to the interest of the other joint owner. Therefore, the French, German and Danish legislatures grant joint ownership of jointly developed BIM models and regulate in their copyright laws the right of the owners in exercising ownership rights.

In this regard, the French Intellectual Property Code Article L.113-3 provides:

‘The collaborative work is the common property of the co-authors. The co-authors must exercise their rights by an agreement. In the event of disagreement, it is for the civil jurisdiction to rule.’

The developers of a BIM model in a tendering process will be the joint owners of the model and the exercise of their rights is governed by the copyright law of the relevant EU Member State. Since the exercise of its ownership rights by each owner can potentially conflict with the interests of another owner, such exercise would generally only be permitted with the consent of the other owner(s). Therefore, the contracting authorities would not have the right to disclose the BIM model to third parties without the prior consent of the tenderer with whom they developed the BIM model.

The possibilities of BIM are endless, the trend in the construction industry is, and when there is something new, people immediately want to assign more risk to it. Thus, companies/individuals have Thus, companies/individuals have started getting the intellectual property right registered during the initial stage of a project.

Science and technology are developing faster than intellectual property legislation. As a result, previously unknown products of intellectual activity are regulated by general rules. While working and exchanging digital data on a collaborative platform can cause problems related to intellectual property such as if a copyright violation of models and intellectual property enters the court process, it poses a great financial risk and can cause project delays that will result in its loss. Before a project is implemented, there needs to be a clear understanding not only of who owns the model but also of who is responsible for the model. Then, we must consider which actors have the potential to retain the collaborative product for its sustainability. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a review and synthesis of the related studies to identify the model ownership and intellectual property rights.

Who really owns a social media account?

The user is the account holder, but the platform retains ownership of the infrastructure. The terms of use generally state that access can be restricted or removed at any time.
➡ A social media account is an intangible asset, governed by contractual terms.

Can a social media account be transferred or sold?

In principle, selling or transferring a personal account is prohibited by most platforms’ terms. However, in a professional context (influencer, brand), monetization or transfer may be allowed under contractual arrangements.

What happens if there is a dispute over a social media account?

In the event of a dispute (employer/employee, co-founders, heirs), courts analyze management, usage history, and intent to determine ownership. Including specific clauses in contracts or policies is strongly advised.

Written by Dreyfus13/12/2021

Following a decision by the Shenzhen Nashan People’s Court in China, a work generated by an algorithmic program has been deemed eligible for copyright protection.

1. An infringement action of a work produced by an automated program

Tencent, a company specializing in internet services and online advertising, published on its website a financial report article written by an algorithm-based intelligent writing system and data set, called « Tencent Robot Dreamwriter ».

After noticing that the article was reproduced without permission on a website operated by Shanghai Yingxun Technology, Tencent filed an infringement action against the said company.

However, the underlying and main issue in this dispute is whether a work generated with the help of artificial intelligence can adequately benefit from copyright protection.

The issue has been a constant source of controversy on an international scale for several years, and the Beijing Internet Court ruled in 2019 that only legal subjects expressly specified by Chinese copyright law should be considered as appropriate authors of works. Therefore, algorithmic programs are excluded. The court had also investigated on the process of generating the artificial intelligence at issue.

2. A precarious apprehension of creations generated by artificial intelligence

According to Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence of May 21, 2020 prepared by the WIPO Secretariat, a distinction should be made between « AI generated », which does not require human intervention and which can modify its behavior during an operation in accordance with the application of various factors and « AI assisted », which conversely requires material human intervention and/or direction.

Regarding the European Union, the Delvaux Report adopted in February 2017 by the European Parliament proposed to grant a « sui generis » intellectual property protection to works created by artificial intelligence and to reflect on the criteria of proper intellectual creation applicable to copyrightable works created by computers or robots.

3. Towards an evolution of copyright in the field of artificial intelligence

The case opposing Tencent to Shanghai Yingxun Technology is the first litigation to support copyright protection for a work generated by an algorithmic program.

During the proceeding, Tencent explained the entire process of the “creative team” used to generate and publish the article with the assistance of the “Dreamwriter” robot.

The court carried out a reasoning based in particular on two points of assessment.

Firstly, attention was classically paid to the form of expression, the content and structure of the article that have been judged original.

Then, the court turned to the generation process of the article. In this regard, it focused on the presence of factors indicating the creator’s individual selections, judgment and required skills, recognizing that the creation process differed from the ordinary process of creating written works.

This court decision tends to favor, eminently, a possible extension of copyright protection to works generated by artificial intelligence on an international scale. However, reflections on the criteria that could be specifically retained in order to appreciate the benefit of the protection of these works coming from a creative process that has been excluded until now, will continue to feed, and even prolong, the debate.

In order to offer our clients a unique expertise, necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets, we keep you informed about intellectual property and digital economy issues through articles written by Dreyfus’ legal team.

About this topic…

♦ All concerned: works generated by artificial intelligence

♦ Meeting with Jean-Gabriel Ganascia

Written by Dreyfus27/07/2021

Fragrance is nowadays a very important economic interest whether in art, luxury or marketing industry.

Faced with such interests, how does intellectual property try to protect it

The olfactory work: an intellectual work bearing the mind of the author?

The Intellectual Property Code aims, in a non-exhaustive way, the traditional forms of artistic expression (literary, graphic, musical creation, etc.), as long as they satisfy the conditions of originality and tangible form introduced by French law.

Beyond these traditional forms of artworks, case law studied a certain number of creations to determine whether they could be qualified as “intellectual work», such as recipes for example. Among them, olfactory work has been the subject of many discussions. In a world where materiality is omniscient, the fragrance tries, not without difficulty, to find a place in the “Panthéon des œuvres d’art”.

According to perfumers and other “aficionados”, fragrance is an art. However, the French Court de Cassation does not share the same opinion, remaining recalcitrant to the idea of elevating it to the rank of intellectual work and consequently, to grant the perfumer the author status.

Perfume fades, but this should not systematically exclude it from the copyright sphere. Indeed, the fragrance is by nature fluctuating, perishable. Yet, intellectual property does not, as a matter of principle, exclude ephemeral works from copyright protection.

The French Cour de Cassation assumes that the fragrance of a perfume which proceeds from the simple implementation of know-how, does not constitute within the meaning of articles L112-1 and L112-2 of Intellectual Property Code a creation of an expression form which can benefit from the copyright.

In other words, the Court assimilates this process of perfume creation to a simple implementation of a know-how, not protectable by French copyright, and rejects the identification of a form of creation through the sense of smell.

By taking this position, the French Cour de Cassation met with resistance from trial judges and doctrine (TGI Bobigny, 28 nov. 2006 ; CA Paris, 14 fevr. 2007 ; CA Aix-en-Provence, 10 dec. 2010).

Several judgments, on the contrary considered the fragrance as an olfactory form of creation whose originality cannot be denied. The judges also considered the fragrance originality through the novelty of its smell, the association of its scents. Faced with this craze, the Cour de Cassation reviewed its position on the matter but without opening the door to the protection for olfactory creations, considering that: copyright protects creations in their sensitive form, as long as it is identifiable with sufficient precision to allow its communication (Cass. Com., 10 déc. 2013, n° 11-19872).

The protection of fragrances by copyright remains a controversial debate. Only a reversal of case law could settle the issue in favour of perfumers, a position more than expected given the increasingly difficult protection of manufacturing secrets.

Today, it is only on the grounds of parasitism and unfair competition that the perfumer can rely on in case of unauthorized reproduction of the fragrance, as shown by the Lancôme decision. However, those grounds remain less advantageous than the infringement action, as it will be up to the plaintiff to prove the existence of a fault.

The fragrance: a protection by trademark law?

In the scope of industrial property, the fragrance can be apprehended and protected as a trademark.

Indeed, a fragrance can be registered as an olfactory trademark before the Intellectual Property French Office (INPI). Since olfactory memories are the longest to last, according to most scientists, more and more companies want to awaken this sense for the consumer by associating a pleasant smell with their products.

For a long time, this registration of an olfactory trademark was a problem since it could not be represented graphically. Since March 23, 2016, the “Trademark Package” removed this requirement in favour of the olfactory trademark.

Henceforth, the trademark may be protected as soon as it can be represented in any appropriate form through available technology. However, in practice, the registration of olfactive trademarks remains unusual because of its complexity.

Even if the graphic representation required has been deleted, it is still complex to represent the essence of a smell – a chemical formula cannot characterize a perfume. Furthermore, the trademark must be sufficiently distinctive to allow the consumer to identify the commercial origin of the goods and services covered by the smell; distinctiveness still difficult to demonstrate.

In parallel with trademark law, patent law can also be used to protect a smell, provided that it is new, industrially applicable and provides a solution to a concrete problem; conditions that are not necessarily easier to meet.

To conclude, fragrance protection is subject to many debates and difficulties. However, it is not impossible and some legal actors do not cease to claim this protection.

The importance of the olfactory cognitive memory, or the complexity and originality of the creation process, are the keywords defending the fragrance, subject of great legal attention.

Was the “fair use” exemption a good idea?

Insofar as Jeff Koons’s work “Fait d’hiver” was conceived in the United States, the artist upheld that United-States law should have applied. To strengthen his argument, he relied on the Rome II Regulation, which seeks to preserve the principle of “lex loc protectionis” about “a non-contractual obligation arising from an infringement of an intellectual property right”. It would have been a mistake for Jeff Koons not to try to benefit from this Regulation, notably since American law provides for the “fair use” exception, which allows the exclusive rights of an author to be limited, in particular, to allow his work to be parodied (17 U.S.C. §107). But let’s remember that in 1992, Koons lost an action in which he had claimed this exception. At the time, the Court charged him with copyright infringement for his sculpture “String of Puppies”, which was considered a copy, with a few differences, of a photo taken by the American photographer Art Rogers. The judges deemed that the slight differences between the original photograph and the sculpture were insufficient to rule out infringement.

That said, and thus contradicting one of Jeff Koons’s arguments showing the differences between his “Fait d’hiver” and that of Naf-Naf, the Court of Appeal recalls that infringement is not assessed regarding the differences, but rather in terms of the similarities between the works involved.

Not too much of a surprise, the Paris Court of Appeal found that French law applied to “Fait d’hiver” insofar as the copyright infringement took place in France. Hence, the exception of fair use was not applicable in the present case.

Did Frank Davidovici have legal standing?

Koons then claimed that Frank Davidovici lacked legal standing. Indeed, the original photograph was a collective work and therefore the property of Naf-Naf. The evidence provided by the appellants was not enough for the Court of Appeal, which came to the same conclusions as at first instance, namely that the advertising campaign was not a collective work but a collaborative work, in which Frank Davidovici’s contribution could be “individualized”, and that the other authors had assigned their economic rights to him.

On the French five-year limitation period for infringement

The appellants argued that the work had been created more than 20 years before the subpoena (which took place on January 9, 2015), that it had been exhibited since 1995 in a Parisian gallery. In addition, they claimed that Jeff Koons displayed the reproduction on his website where he described it as ‘unmissable to anyone interested in [his] work’ and by “anyone”. Koons targeted the respondent.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument since the respondents were criticising the exhibition at the Centre Pompidou, which had begun in November 214, i.e. two months before the subpoena.

Pleas in law based on the freedom of artistic expression and the parody exception

The appellants invoked Article 10 of the ECHR (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights) to remind them that judges shall not interfere with the artists’ creative freedom or deny their artistic approach. However, this article also states that the artistic freedom of expression includes limitations, and in this case, the latter was legal since it relied upon Article L.122-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code. This article condemns any adaptation or transformation of a work without the consent of its author. Considering that the sculpture uses the dominant elements of the original photograph (the penguins and the pig’s flower necklace being of little relevance) and that it makes no mention of Davidovici’s work, Koons was obviously at fault. There is a very narrow line between inspiration and infringement of earlier work.

The appellants also sought to invoke the parody defence, relying on the definition given by the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) in 2014 in the Deckmyn case, which stated that “the essential characteristics of parody are, first, to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it, and, secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery“. The Paris Court of Appeal considered here that the humorous purpose was certainly not obvious, insofar as Koons described his “Fait d’hiver” as being “a work on renewal“, the illustration of the “process of self-acceptance“. Besides, according to the Court, there was a gap of almost 30 years between the advertising campaign and the sculpture. This period was so long that the public might not have perceived the parody.

The boundary between free inspiration and art infringement is very narrow, and sometimes difficult for artists to apprehend. Despite the solid defence strategy of Jeff Koons, one must acknowledge that it is essential to obtain prior approval before creating a work that may infringe the rights of another artist.

copyright

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v. Datel Design and Development Ltd (Case C-159/23)

Background of the case

Legal questions referred to the CJEU: Analysis and judgment

Implications of the decision

Conclusion

Intersection of AI and Copyright : a groundbreaking Czech ruling

Background of the case

Analysis of the decision

Commentary

Plagiarism of art by fashion: inspiration or violation of intellectual property?

What are the benefits of IP litigation and how can you make the most of it?

How to protect Building information modelling (BIM)?

“We shape our buildings ; thereafter they shape us.” – Winston Churchill

So, what does make BIM so exciting?

Where does intellectual property come into this conversation?

SEE ALSO ….

Social Media Accounts are property, but who has right to ownership?

Who really owns a social media account?

Can a social media account be transferred or sold?

What happens if there is a dispute over a social media account?

Copyright in front of artificial intelligence

1. An infringement action of a work produced by an automated program

2. A precarious apprehension of creations generated by artificial intelligence

3. Towards an evolution of copyright in the field of artificial intelligence

About this topic…

Fragrance and Intellectual Property: which protection?

The olfactory work: an intellectual work bearing the mind of the author?

SEE ALSO…

Artists: how can you defend your freedom of artistic expression?

Was the “fair use” exemption a good idea?

Did Frank Davidovici have legal standing?

On the French five-year limitation period for infringement

Pleas in law based on the freedom of artistic expression and the parody exception

Sign up for our newsletter and stay informed about the latest developments in intellectual property and the digital economy!

News from Dreyfus Blog

Categories

Categories

Contact

Sign up for our newsletter and stay informed about the latest developments in intellectual property and the digital economy!