PRIMARY SOURCES

ON COPYRIGHT

(1450-1900)

Court of Cassation on photography (1862)

Source: Bibliothèque universitaire de Poitiers (SCD): Dalloz, Jurisprudence générale. Recueil Périodique et critique de jurisprudence, de legislation et de doctrine, 1863.1.52

Citation:
Court of Cassation on photography (1862), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

Back | Record | Images | Commentaries: [1]
Record-ID: f_1862

Permanent link: https://copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=record_f_1862

Full title:
Betbéder and Schwalbé C. Mayer and Pierson, Court of Cassation. 21 November 1862

Full title original language:
Betbéder et Schwalbé C. Mayer et Pierson, Court de Cassation. Du 21 nov. 1862

Abstract:
The law of 1793 had, obviously, not foreseen the question of photographic productions. Nevertheless, even at a time when photography was beginning to truly assert itself as a lucrative means of reproduction, the revolutionary legislation's very broad provisions, which envisaged all kinds of works, could potentially serve to secure protection for photographs. As it turned out, the question as to whether the products of photography constituted artistic works in the sense of the 1793 act would be fiercely debated right up to the end of the nineteenth century. Giving rise to contradictory decisions before the lower courts from the early 1860s onwards, this question presented itself for the first time to the judges of the Court of Cassation in November 1862. The supreme judges had to give their opinion in this matter, and a priori they had two basic options to choose from: either to exclude photography insofar as it was a simple machine product, whose very form excluded any possibility of identifying an author; or to accept that photography should be protected, since in its form it testified to a personal contribution on the photographer's part and even to his personality. Faced with these two quite opposite standpoints, the judges ultimately opted for another system - one that was complicated, ambiguous, and, so to speak, intermediate between these two principles.

1 Commentary:
commentary_f_1862

Bibliography:
N/A

Related documents in this database:
1876: Copyright Acts for the German Empire regarding works of art, photography, and designs
1865: Copyright Act Amendment
1882: Oscar Wilde photograph
1883: Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
1883: Sarony's Brief
1883: Burrow-Giles' Brief

Author: N/A

Publisher: Dalloz

Year: 1862

Location: N/A

Language: French

Source: Bibliothèque universitaire de Poitiers (SCD): Dalloz, Jurisprudence générale. Recueil Périodique et critique de jurisprudence, de legislation et de doctrine, 1863.1.52

Persons referred to:
Betbéder
Bisson, Auguste-Rosalie
Bisson, Louis-Auguste
Daguerre, Louis Jacques Mandé
De Perceval, E. Caussin
Di Cavour, Count Camillo Benso
Flandrin, Jean Hippolyte
Guyho, Corentin
Henriquel-Dupont, Louis-Pierre
Hérold, Ferdinand
Ingres, Jean Auguste Dominique
Mayer, Louis Frédéric
Mayer, Léopold Ernst
Palmerston, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount
Pierson, Pierre Louis
Rendu, Ambroise
Robert-Fleury, Joseph-Nicolas
Schwalbé
Thiébault, Eugène
Vaisse, Marc-Antoine-Henri-Marius

Places referred to:
Aix
Italy
Paris

Cases referred to:
Mayer et Pierson v. Betbéder and Schwalbé (1862)

Institutions referred to:
Court of Cassation (Paris)
Imperial Court of Paris
Institut de France
Tribunal correctionnel de la Seine

Legislation:
French Copyright Act 1793

Keywords:
adaptation
art market
authorship, theory of
commissions
creativity
industrial revolution
originality
patents, for invention
personality theory
photography, protected subject matter
portrait
public domain

Responsible editor: Frédéric Rideau


Copyright History resource developed in partnership with:

Our Partners

Copyright statement

You may copy and distribute the translations and commentaries in this resource, or parts of such translations and commentaries, in any medium, for non-commercial purposes as long as the authorship of the commentaries and translations is acknowledged, and you indicate the source as Bently & Kretschmer (eds), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) (www.copyrighthistory.org).

With the exception of commentaries that are available under a CC-BY licence (compliant with UKRI policy) you may not publish individual documents or parts of the database for any commercial purposes, including charging a fee for providing access to these documents via a network. This licence does not affect your statutory rights of fair dealing.

Although the original documents in this database are in the public domain, we are unable to grant you the right to reproduce or duplicate some of these documents in so far as the images or scans are protected by copyright or we have only been able to reproduce them here by giving contractual undertakings. For the status of any particular images, please consult the information relating to copyright in the bibliographic records.

Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) is co-published by Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, 10 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, UK and CREATe, School of Law, University of Glasgow, 10 The Square, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK