Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
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]
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
COURT OF CASSATION 53
[1st column:]
the contested decision replies that the plaintiffs are the authors of the portrait of
the Comte de Cavour; and it is established that they obtained the right to reproduce
and sell it, and that Betbeder knowingly reproduced the portrait of the Comte de Cavour
from the photographic portrait belonging to the complainants; and this special work
upon which the complainants claimed an exclusive right of property, without moreover
contesting the respective right of Betbeder and Schwalbé to reproduce the image of the
Comte de Cavour, being declared by the decision to be the exclusive property of the plaintiffs
in the counterfeiting suit, the result of these provisions combined is that the
contested decision did declare and justify the exclusive right of Mayer and Pierson to the
photographic reproduction made by them of the portrait of the Comte de Cavour; and therefore
the alleged omission does not exist;
With regard to the third argument, which arises specifically from a lack of cause, in so
far as the contested decision is alleged not to have responded to the submissions of Betbeder,
based on the fact that the photograph made by him was not the exact reproduction of the
portrait of the Comte de Cavour, supposedly counterfeited; — Whereas, on this point, one
may read in the disputed decision that Betbeder knowingly reproduced the portrait of the
Comte de Cavour from the photographic portrait belonging to the plaintiffs, and that the
modification of certain props is not sufficient to cancel out this misdemeanour; and this
declaration, whose virtual result it is to render the alleged modification insufficient
to disguise the counterfeit, responds adequately to the aforementioned submissions:
For these reasons, and whereas, moreover, the ruling is regular in form, the Court
rejects the appeal etc.
On 28 November 1862. - Criminal Chamber - Messrs Vaïsse, President - Caussin de
Perceval, Reporter - Guyho, Attorney General, c. conf. - Hérold and Rendu, lawyers.
_________________
No Transcription available.
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]
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
[1st column:]
the contested decision replies that the plaintiffs are the authors of the portrait of
the Comte de Cavour; and it is established that they obtained the right to reproduce
and sell it, and that Betbeder knowingly reproduced the portrait of the Comte de Cavour
from the photographic portrait belonging to the complainants; and this special work
upon which the complainants claimed an exclusive right of property, without moreover
contesting the respective right of Betbeder and Schwalbé to reproduce the image of the
Comte de Cavour, being declared by the decision to be the exclusive property of the plaintiffs
in the counterfeiting suit, the result of these provisions combined is that the
contested decision did declare and justify the exclusive right of Mayer and Pierson to the
photographic reproduction made by them of the portrait of the Comte de Cavour; and therefore
the alleged omission does not exist;
With regard to the third argument, which arises specifically from a lack of cause, in so
far as the contested decision is alleged not to have responded to the submissions of Betbeder,
based on the fact that the photograph made by him was not the exact reproduction of the
portrait of the Comte de Cavour, supposedly counterfeited; — Whereas, on this point, one
may read in the disputed decision that Betbeder knowingly reproduced the portrait of the
Comte de Cavour from the photographic portrait belonging to the plaintiffs, and that the
modification of certain props is not sufficient to cancel out this misdemeanour; and this
declaration, whose virtual result it is to render the alleged modification insufficient
to disguise the counterfeit, responds adequately to the aforementioned submissions:
For these reasons, and whereas, moreover, the ruling is regular in form, the Court
rejects the appeal etc.
On 28 November 1862. - Criminal Chamber - Messrs Vaïsse, President - Caussin de
Perceval, Reporter - Guyho, Attorney General, c. conf. - Hérold and Rendu, lawyers.
No Transcription available.