Need for a Tour Leader in Paris France Be Welcome.

Tim Challenger writes:

Ever winder why there's only a handful of them?

It's not in great demand.

Are they all apothikidytes as well?

What is it?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:27:35 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Tim Challenger writes:

Ever winder why there's only a handful of them?

It's not in great demand.

Are they all apothikidytes as well?

What is it?

You missed the other thread about you.
Apothiki ~= cupboard/box room.
--
Tim C.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:51:18 +0200, nitram wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:48:32 +0200, Tim Challenger
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:27:35 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Tim Challenger writes:

Ever winder why there's only a handful of them?

It's not in great demand.

Are they all apothikidytes as well?

What is it?

You missed the other thread about you.
Apothiki ~= cupboard/box room.

It was about the fabulous Mixi, not mXSmanic.

Please don't add to the confusion!

Always trying to do my best. ;-)
--
Tim C.

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Padraig Breathnach writes:

I think that is a preposterous claim by SNTE, and I would hope that
any French court would throw out any claim brought by them against a
photographer.

French courts are pretty draconian and tend to give unconditional
preference to even the most flimsy claims of IP rights. However, the
bad publicity is what would really hurt in any such lawsuit.

I note the French text refers to photos, while the English refers to
pictures.

In theory, you cannot _sketch_ images of a copyrighted work in France,
either. As a matter of fact, if you read the law as written, you need
permission from the copyright holder for virtually every recognizable
object in a photo, including trashcans, curbstones, street lamps,
bicycle tires, and so on.

I'm still not a specialist but accodring to what I read in about 2
hours on Legifrance :

The industrial properties are concerned by books IV to VII of the code
de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI) but except trademarks logo, if
only distinguishable on such photos... I don't see what kind of
"object" possibly found on a photography could be concerned by this
code, except architecture and creations of the seasonal industries
listed in the works of the mind at art. L 112-2. IMO, the code
concerns the performance including telediffusion (direct image,
etc...) or reproduction (indirect photography, etc...) of only
artistic productions, according to books I to III (cf. art. L 111-1, §
2).
Do you have an answer Stanislas ?
The jurisprudency concerning the photography of buildings free of
architectural copyright differs according to the situations and
concerns the right of property of art. 544 of civil code not the CPI.
It's possible for touristic publicity for ex. but not for numerous
reproductions with commercial benefits like postcards in case of
"trouble manifeste" and at the condition that the object is as you
said the PRINCIPAL subject of the reproduction. The theory of the
principal and accessory applies as well to the copyrights. See
jurisprudency below.
This jurisprudency wasn't in the Beaubourg database when I made my
message of 07.09.2000 : make a search with meurgues + lacambre (note
that I prooved there that the mediatic anglo-saxon campaign concerning
the alleged "closing" of a website because of nude photos publication
was based on false news misinterpreting the french courts
decisions...!!!).
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad...xperteCass.jsp

Titrages et résumés PROPRIETE - Droit d'usage ou de jouissance -
Atteinte - Photographie - Trouble certain - Constatations nécessaires.
Prive sa décision de base légale au regard de l'article 544 du Code
civil la cour d'appel qui interdit la diffusion d'une photographie
représentant un paysage avec au premier plan un îlot, propriété d'un
particulier, malgré l'opposition de celui-ci, sans préciser en quoi
l'exploitation de la photographie par les titulaires du droit
incorporel de l'auteur portait un trouble certain au droit d'usage ou
de jouissance du propriétaire.
(Cass civ 02.05.01, Bull, p.74).

Titrages et résumés PROPRIETE - Atteinte au droit de propriété - Droit
du propriétaire de s'opposer à toute exploitation de son bien -
Photographies .
Caractérisent le trouble manifestement illicite causé au propriétaire
d'une péniche, justifiant une mesure d'interdiction de diffusion de
cartes postales la représentant, les juges qui retiennent que la
péniche était le sujet principal de l'image.
(Cass civ 25.01.00, Bull, p.16).

Titrages et résumés PROPRIETE LITTERAIRE ET ARTISTIQUE -
Représentation - Définition - Photographie - Apparition accessoire
dans un film (non).
Ayant souverainement relevé que l'apparition d'une photographie dans
un film publicitaire concernant un ouvrage sur lequel elle figurait
était accessoire par rapport au sujet, la cour d'appel en déduit à bon
droit que ce film ne réalisait pas une représentation, même dérivée,
de l'oeuvre.
(Cass civ 12.06.01, Bull, p.112).

In the case of the lighting of the centenary show of the Eiffel tower,
the jurisprudency apparently added the "création visuelle" in the non
exhaustive list, but in its particular domain, of art. L 112-2 CPI. In
your photo the illumitated parts of the tower ("indissociables"
elements) are the principal subject. The author of the illuminations
apparently sold his rights to the SNETE according to L 131-3 CPI since
the existence of a "contrat de travail" is not sufficient to abandon
these rights (cf. art. L 111-1, § 3 and several decisions not quoted
below). You need to abandon them specifically in your contract (art. L
131-3).
IMO the "reproduction" of the normal lighting too, including above all
the lightbulbs "scintillement" could be considered as original but I
didn't find some jurisprudency. Stanislas seems to say that there is
some, but they are not published in the bulletin of the Cour de
cassation. Because of their number at 3rd and last level, in France a
NOT published judgment of first level of courts doesn't "consolidate"
the national jurisprudency but worth mainly for the case concerned. It
could also be perfectly possible that the simple lighting of a flat
facade could be not considered as original while the complexity and
myriad of possibilities for the Eiffel tower due to the specificity of
it's structure ("résille") could be. It's up to the courts.
Concerning the "visual creation" addition, remember the famous case
Brancusi v. US customs (approximative) and, from where was then coming
the piece of... art "l'oiseau dans l'espace"... :+). Or the...
Censorship by... US Artists ! like FLAVIN, a specialists in
light-tubes isn't it... :+), of the performance of BUREN at the
Gugenheim in the 60ies...

In a former post you said :
Thus, every tourist taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night is
theoretically committing a felony, if the claim for the lighting of
the tower is valid."
That's not true according to "L 122-5-1° and 2° § CPI below.

You said also : L'architecte est payé pour concevoir des bâtiments. Je
ne vois pas pourquoi il doit en profiter une _deuxième_ fois en tant
qu'artiste.
If you deny to somebody else the possibility to be recognise as an
artist I hope that you have copyrighted none of your own art
production.

You said as well :
The Eiffel Tower itself is in the public domain, and has been for many
years. That's why the SNETE tries to assert control by putting
"copyrighted" things on the tower, like stupid lighting displays.
I remind you that the SNETE controls the copyright of the centenary
illuminations ONLY because the author sold his rights to this society.
If he had not done that, that's HIM who would have controlled the
copyright of this "oeuvre de l'esprit" NOT the SNETE. For the normal
lighting I'm still waiting for the jurisprudency.

Titrages et résumés PROPRIETE LITTERAIRE ET ARTISTIQUE - Oeuvre de
l'esprit - Définition - Spectacle sonore et visuel du centenaire de la
Tour Eiffel - Création visuelle originale - Reproduction -
Prohibition.
PROPRIETE LITTERAIRE ET ARTISTIQUE - Oeuvres protégées - Oeuvre de
l'esprit - Originalité - Spectacle son et lumière - Monument -
Centenaire - Evénement symbolique - Auteur - Création visuelle -
Propriété incorporelle - Reproduction - Photographies - Autorisation
(non) - Caractère illicite.
Attendu que la cour d'appel a souverainement retenu que la composition
de jeux de lumière destinés à révéler et à souligner les lignes et les
formes du monument constituait une "création visuelle" originale, et,
partant, une oeuvre de l'esprit ; qu'il en résultait nécessairement au
bénéfice de son auteur un droit de propriété incorporelle, abstraction
faite de l'évènement public à l'occasion duquel cette oeuvre lui avait
été commandée, et qu'était donc manifestement illicite toute
reproduction qui, comme celles de l'espèce, n'entrait pas dans l'une
des catégories limitativement énumérée par [la loi].
(Cass civ 03.03.92, n°90-18081).

For natural elements :
Titrages et résumés PROPRIETE - Droit de propriété - Attributs - Vue
sur un site naturel public (non).
Une photographie du cirque de Gavarnie ayant été prise depuis un
hôtel, une cour d'appel énonce justement que cet hôtel ne possède
aucun droit de propriété sur la vue du cirque de Gavarnie.
(Cass civ 03.07.03, p. 190).

didier Meurgues

CPI abstracts for info :
Reopen http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/ListeCodes if the session
of the english translation

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/c.../cpialtext.htm is
expired

Article L111-1.
The author of a work of the mind shall enjoy in that work, by the mere
fact of its creation, an exclusive incorporeal property right which
shall be enforceable against all persons.
This right shall include attributes of an intellectual and moral
nature as well as attributes of an economic nature, as determined by
Books I and III of this Code.
The existence or conclusion of a contract for hire or of service by
the author of a work of the mind shall in no way derogate from the
enjoyment of the right afforded by the first paragraph above.

Article L112-1
The provisions of this Code shall protect the rights of authors in all
works of the mind, whatever their kind, form of expression, merit or
purpose.

Article L112-2
(Act No. 94-361 of 10 May 1994 art. 2 Official Journal of 11 May 1994)
The following, in particular, shall be considered works of the mind
within the meaning of this Code:
1°.books, pamphlets and other literary, artistic and scientific
writings;
2°.lectures, addresses, sermons, pleadings and other works of such
nature;
3°.dramatic or dramatico-musical works;
4°.choreographic works, circus acts and feats and dumb-show works, the
acting form of which is set down in writing or in other manner;
5°.musical compositions with or without words;
6°.cinematographic works and other works consisting of sequences of
moving images, with or without sound, together referred to as
audiovisual works;
7°.works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and
lithography;
8°.graphical and typographical works;
9°.photographic works and works produced by techniques analogous to
photography;
10°.works of applied art;
11°.illustrations, geographical maps;
12°.plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography,
topography, architecture and science;
13°.software, including the preparatory design material;
14°.creations of the seasonal industries of dress and articles of
fashion. Industries which, by reason of the demands of fashion,
frequently renew the form of their products, particularly the making
of dresses, furs, underwear, embroidery, fashion, shoes, gloves,
leather goods, the manufacture of fabrics of striking novelty or of
special use in high fashion dressmaking, the products of manufacturers
of articles of fashion and of footwear and the manufacture of fabrics
for upholstery shall be deemed to be seasonal industries.

(L.122-6 for sofwares, etc...)

Article L122-1
The right of exploitation belonging to the author shall comprise the
right of performance and the right of reproduction.

Article L122-2
Performance shall consist in the communication of the work to the
public by any process whatsoever, particularly:
1°.public recitation, lyrical performance, dramatic performance,
public presentation, public projection and transmission in a public
place of a telediffused work;
2°.telediffusion.
Telediffusion shall mean distribution by any telecommunication process
of sounds, images, documents, data and messages of any kind.
Transmission of a work towards a satellite shall be assimilated to a
performance.

Article L122-3
Reproduction shall consist in the physical fixation of a work by any
process permitting it to be communicated to the public in an indirect
way.
It may be carried out, in particular, by printing, drawing, engraving,
photography, casting and all processes of the graphical and plastic
arts, mechanical, cinematographic or magnetic recording.
In the case of works of architecture, reproduction shall also consist
in the repeated execution of a plan or of a standard project.

Article L122-5
(Act No. 94-361 of 10 May 1994 art. 5 II Official Journal of 11 May
1994)
(Act No. 97-283 of 27 Mars 1997 art. 17 Official Journal of 28 Mars
1997)
(Act No. 98-536 of 1 July 1998 art. 2 and art. 3 Official Journal of 2
July 1998)
(Act No. 2000-642 of 11 July 2000 art. 47 Official Journal of 11 July
2000)
Once a work has been disclosed, the author may not prohibit:
1°. private and gratuitous performances carried out exclusively within
the family circle;
2°. copies or reproductions reserved strictly for the private use of
the copier and not intended for collective use, with the exception of
copies of works of art to be used for purposes identical with those
for which the original work was created and copies of software other
than backup copies made in accordance with paragraph II of Article L.
122-6-1, as well as copies or reproductions of an electronic database;
3°. on condition that the name of the author and the source are
clearly stated:
a) analyses and short quotations justified by the critical, polemic,
educational, scientific or informatory nature of the work in which
they are incorporated;
b) press reviews;
c) dissemination, even in their entirety, through the press or by
broadcasting, as current news, of speeches intended for the public
made in political, administrative, judicial or academic gatherings, as
well as in public meetings of a political nature and at official
ceremonies;
d) complete or partial reproductions of works of graphic or
three-dimensional art intended to appear in the catalogue of a
judicial sale held in France, in the form of the copies of the said
catalogue made available to the public prior to the sale for the sole
purpose of describing the works of art offered for sale.
A decree by the Conseil d'Etat shall determine the characteristics of
the documents and the conditions governing their distribution.
4°. parody, pastiche and caricature, observing the rules of the genre.
5°. acts necessary to access the contents of an electronic database
for the purposes of and within the limits of the use provided by
contract.

Article L131-2
The performance, publishing and audiovisual production contracts
defined in this Title shall be in writing. The same shall apply to
free performance authorizations.
In all other cases, the provisions of Articles 1341 to 1348 of the
Civil Code shall apply.

Article L131-3
Transfer of authors' rights shall be subject to each of the assigned
rights being separately mentioned in the instrument of assignment and
the field of exploitation of the assigned rights being defined as to
its scope and purpose, as to place and as to duration (...).

didier Meurgues writes:

You said also : L'architecte est payé pour concevoir des bâtiments. Je
ne vois pas pourquoi il doit en profiter une _deuxième_ fois en tant
qu'artiste.

I don't see why someone should profit twice from a single instance of
work.

If you deny to somebody else the possibility to be recognise as an
artist I hope that you have copyrighted none of your own art
production.

If it is _art_ production, then the principle purpose of the work is
art. If it is architecture, than the principle purpose of the work is
construction of a building.

Anyway, copyright is inherent in orginal creative works as soon as they
are fixed in a tangible medium. However, I don't worry too much about
copyright. I actually find it more profitable and much simpler in most
cases to simply be paid a fee for taking pictures and then sign over the
rights to the results to a client. I have a low opinion of
photographers who attempt to gouge clients for every single print and
use of their photos. I usually grant very broad reproduction rights for
a fixed and reasonable fee.

I remind you that the SNETE controls the copyright of the centenary
illuminations ONLY because the author sold his rights to this society.

I question why anyone is allowed to use part of the country's national
heritage as his own private canvas for art.

If he had not done that, that's HIM who would have controlled the
copyright of this "oeuvre de l'esprit" NOT the SNETE.

As I recall, the Eiffel Tower is a national monument. I also seem to
recall laws against distortion of national monuments. Why doesn't that
apply to lighting, particularly lighting that is claimed to be
"artistic" and thus alters a monument visually by definition?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

nitram writes:

It's why you give away your photos?

Sometimes, although then I don't profit from them even once.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Emilia writes:

No wonder you are poor & can't make any money.

It's certainly true that if I didn't have a conscience I'd be making a
lot more money.

This is clearly not France's fault (as you often state) but your own
inadequacies.

I never thought ethics and honesty were faults, although I sometimes
wonder when I see how people around me behave.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Emilia writes:

Don't be ridiculous (again). It is honest for you to be paid for your work
& your original creation.

Sure ... once. But not forever and ever.

If you wrote a book you would only get paid once they?

It depends.

Or is it ethical for the publisher to paid for every copy he sold
while you get nothing?

It depends.

If I'm a carpenter and I build a store for a client, I don't permanently
get paid a percentage of everything he sells in the store, even though
his sales are dependent on the store I built for him.

There is nothing unethical about making money from your creative works.

Perhaps for a limited time, but not forever. Originally, in the U.S.,
copyright was just 14 years, which was plenty. Today, it's the lifetime
of the author plus 70 years, which is ridiculous. Work once, get paid
forever? There are a lot of people in other occupations who would love
to have that opportunity!

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Emilia writes:

Don't be ridiculous (again). It is honest for you to be paid for your work
& your original creation.

Sure ... once. But not forever and ever.

If you wrote a book you would only get paid once they?

It depends.

Or is it ethical for the publisher to paid for every copy he sold
while you get nothing?

It depends.

If I'm a carpenter and I build a store for a client, I don't permanently
get paid a percentage of everything he sells in the store, even though
his sales are dependent on the store I built for him.

There is nothing unethical about making money from your creative works.

Perhaps for a limited time, but not forever. Originally, in the U.S.,
copyright was just 14 years, which was plenty. Today, it's the lifetime
of the author plus 70 years, which is ridiculous. Work once, get paid
forever? There are a lot of people in other occupations who would love
to have that opportunity!

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Emilia writes:

No one said it had to "forever end ever"

A lifetime plus 70 years is effectively forever and ever.

A carpenter isn't the author of an original work.

So? Why should authors of original works be paid over and over for a
single instance of their work, when people in other professions only get
paid once for each bit of work they produce?

No one said for ever. If others want to get in on the royality deal then
they just need to create an original work that someone wants to license and
that others want to buy. Really easy. Get to work.

That can be reversed, too: If artists want to make money, let them get
real jobs as butchers or construction workers instead of goofing off
producing useless "art."

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.