Getty Images fights copyright infringement ruling in French court
Getty Images stands accused of intellectual property right infringement after it was successfully sued in a French court by the heiresses of iconic furniture designers
Author: Olivier Laurent
23 Jan 2012 Tags: Getty imagesCopyright
Getty Images is appealing a French court decision that could set a precedent affecting stock photographers across the world, BJP has learnt.
The case was launched by Pernette Martin-Barsac and Jacqueline Jeanneret Gris, who are the respective holders of the hereditary and moral rights over the works of furniture designers Charlotte Perriand and Pierre Jeanneret. Both designers worked with Charles-Edouart Jeanneret, also known as Le Corbusier, to create a series of armchairs and sofas that have become iconic items of the 20th Century.
"My clients, with the Le Corbusier Foundation, own the intellectual property rights to these pieces of furniture," lawyer Dominique de Leusse tells BJP. "For the past 25 years, we've been fighting to stop the counterfeiting of these iconic objects - most of them coming out of Italy - but also against the reproduction in print of these art pieces."
He adds: "These iconic objects are associated with the ideas of quality, comfort and luxury. And often, we see marketing agencies use them to promote computers, alcohol or even financial products. They try to associate the values these objects have with what they're selling. And, the French courts have found that you can't reproduce a work of art without autorisation."
In recent years, de Leusse has found that the images used in these commercial originally came from Getty Images, prompting the lawyer to sue the stock library. "Getty Images is selling images representing these objects without authorisation and without mentioning the names of the rightful copyright holders," de Leusse tells BJP. "The designers' heiresses don't want to see these objects become commonplace," which could have an impact on their value.
Earlier this month, a French court of appeal found against the stock agency, arguing that the designers' intellectual property should be protected, unless the objects were just accessories in the images sold. It wasn't not the case here, according to the court.
"Basically, there are two notions of copyright going against each other in this particular case," says de Leusse. "Photographers' copyright, and the designers' rights. Very much like a photographer needs the authorisation of people featured in their photos before selling them, they also need the authorisation of the intellectual property rights' holders when it comes to works of art such as these objects."
The court's decision has led Getty Images to contact its creative stills and video contributors to alert them against the potential danger of using designer furniture in licensed content.
In an email seen by BJP, Getty Images writes: "The French courts have found in favor of the Le Corbusier rights-holders who initiated these claims. While we disagree with the decision and we are appealing it, we are very mindful that for now, it is a valid decision. It is critical that you understand that any claim like this one is extremely serious and requires action on your part in order to protect your interests, not just ours. We will continue to fight this decision, but in the meantime we must continue to actively pull content from our site that may be deemed infringing. We simply cannot identify all problematic images as quickly without your active participation. And quick action is vital."
The agency adds: "You are responsible under your agreements with us to submit only content for which you have the necessary rights. Using this case as an example, while you may hold a copyright in a particular image or clip, if it contains even a fraction of a Le Corbusier piece then you may not have all the necessary rights under French law to provide that content and therefore may be liable for copyright infringement under French law in respect of the furniture featured."
In a statement sent to BJP, Jonathan Lockwood, vice president of corporate counsel at the stock agency, says: "As a creator and provider of content, respecting intellectual property rights is of the utmost importance to Getty Images. Whilst we respect the differences in French law compared to other jurisdictions, this case involves very specific facts and we can confirm that we are appealing the current decision. The issues involve a conflict between different copyrights and we are taking a stance in support and representation of our photographers and photojournalists from France and elsewhere in the world."
He adds: "We look forward to resolving this matter through the appropriate channels."
De Leusse doesn't believe Getty Images will be successful with its latest appeal. "Jurisprudence goes against them at the moment," he tells BJP. "But I understand their point and the economic impact a proper precedent could have if they lose this case. Other designers and artists could wake up and sue them as well."
In the meantime, Getty Images has sent to its contributors a list of objects that can't be featured in licensed content. It includes furniture designed by Le Corbusier, Ame Jacobsen, Eero Aarnio and Mies van der Rohe.
Comments
Who has the final say on what is "art"
Surely this will just result in a huge number of retrospective claims of "art" and open the floodgates?
The time is coming when all this wonderful photographic technology that man is developing will be for nought as it will be illegal to take a photo of ANYTHING!
I'm glad BJP has taken this up because the implications are worrying to say the least, if other designers chose to enforce their rights in the French courts. It seems any iconic designer product could be protected...iPads, iPhones etc etc.
Taken to its logical everything man made is designed and if it is relatively new will still have some kind of copyright on its design. Architects will have rights over buildings and even a simple object such as a BIC pen is owned by someone.
The court has tried to distinguish between an object that is part of a picture and one whose purpose is in someway to associate the object for the betterment of the product being advertised. I am sorry for the awkward use of words but I can't think if a way of simplifying it.
Clearly there are two sides to this argument, but frankly I think that there is so little value in these (objects within images) that they should be specifically excluded from this kind of copyright law. Imagine a secretary sucking on a pen in thought, it would make little difference if it were BIC, Mont Blanc or Parker. If all these objects are to acquire rights how is anyone going to make a movie, this law is simply nuts.
"Imagine a secretary sucking on a pen in thought, it would make little difference if it were BIC, Mont Blanc or Parker."
Actually, it would. There are loads of cultural, sociological and brand associations that go along with the status of such objects; a secretary with a Mont Blanc pen is clearly in a position or environment with much greater wealth or wealth aspirations than one with a generic biro.
Think about the assumptions people make about common items like cars or watches. Place those items in settings associated with your brand/product/service, and those assumptions are transferred to a degree, whether they are positive or negative.
surely if any product or building is photographed from a public place or you have a invitation to photograph on that private land then you have legitimacy to photograph objects...
Under this law the generic biro was designed by some one and is entitled to the benefit of its copy-writed [sic] design and any other product. That the point where do you draw the line.
This is so sick!!! A design piece and a work of art with historical and social values that influenced the way we think and create today cannot be taken as sacral religious objects!!! We have to stop this absolute non-sense! F*ck CORBU Foundation! Blood-suckers! Shall we not even talk about what he has done for architecture and design history?!? Shall we stop using concrete structure with pillars in buildings because we're not paying this stupid foundation copyrights for that?!? We shall ban Corbu from our teaching from now on! We shall forget him NOW! Let's build a new history of art, music, design and architecture from now on ONLY based in open thinking and forward thinking! Let's finish with all these non-sense Foundations that just destroy the good name of the (already dead) artists and designers!
Let's defend Design's and Architecture's history NOW!
These Foundations always made me sick! They just work hard to destroy our common intellectual properties called : CULTURE and HISTORY !!! They do this on behalf of their own economic interests as the artists themselves are DEAD! If they win this fight, then I suggest their artists’ works to be absolutely considered as with NO cultural value what-so-ever. Let's defend Design's and Architecture's history NOW!
Oh my...! This is too much. I understand we all want some protection for our work of mind. But furniture is not peace of Art or any special situation, because factory make thousands of copies ! Yes, you can make copies also from music and photographs, but they are somebodys work of art, not work of mind. And I think our work is make great pictures and some furniturecompanys work is make furnitures in a factory and sell these, not sell copyrights. This is not first copyrihgts case from some furniturecompany.
"... if it contains even a fraction of a Le Corbusier piece then you may not have all the necessary rights under French law..."
How far do they want to go? Take this to its logical conclusion and anyone whipping out a camera in the Indian city of Chandigarh is screwed if they try to sell the image in France.
Funny how the successful protection of "rights" is so often by those who were not original creators of the work. Photographers can have their work lifted left right and centre and courts, governments and big business couldn't care less. When it comes to artificially protecting and maintaining the price of artworks or outdated models for music sales they are only too happy to move heaven, earth and the law to accomodate.
Take this far enough and you'll risk a day in court photographing anything other than your own body, but given the pharmaceutical industry's proclivity for patents, even that might be risky.
Related Articles
BJP Daily
Most Popular Articles
Don McCullin to headline Visa pour l'Image's 25th edition
EyeEm photo-sharing app aims to enable photographers to sell their images
12 photographers selected for 2013 World Press Photo's Joop Swart Masterclass
Photography contest invites submissions for fine art award
Getty Images announces its 2013 editorial grants
Image Singulières festival presents Cédric Gerbehaye's Winter in Sète
Updating your subscription status 
About us
British Journal of Photography is the world’s longest running photography magazine, established in 1854, and online since 1997. A high-quality monthly printed edition is available as a subscription or from selected newsagents in the UK and around the world.
Jobs
Key Account Manager
We have a vacancy for a Key Account Manager working on The British Journal of Photography
Head of Photography
Magnet Harlequin, one of the UK's leading Creative Production Agencies is seeking a new Head of Photography.
Photographic technical support officers
We have opportunities for two experienced photographic, audio or video technicians.
Popular Topics
