|Is unauthorised reprinting|
The question is whether under French law unauthorised reproduction of Charlie Hebdo cartoons may be considered a copyright infringement.
The IPKat post followed the debate surrounding the opportunity or not of reprinting this French satirical newspaper's irreverent cartoons.
Let's assume that French law was the applicable law.
In the case of unauthorised reproduction of Charlie Hebdo artistic works, the potentially applicable exceptions, as enshrined in the Code de la propriété intellectuelle, could be:
- Article L 122-5, No 3 [likely derived from Article 5(3)(d) of the InfoSoc Directive], which allows, provided that the name of the author and the source are clearly indicated:
- (lett a) the analysis and short quotation of a work because of the critical, polemical, educational, scientific or information character of the (new) work in which it is incorporated;
- (lett b) press reviews.
- Article L 122-5 No 9 [likely derived from Article 5(3)(c) of the InfoSoc Directive], which allows - among other things and subject to the indication of the name of the author - the reproduction, as a whole or in part, of a graphic work of art, by print, broadcast or online, for reasons of exclusive and immediate information directly related to the work. The exception does not apply to works, notably photographs or drawings, that in themselves are meant to convey information [this bit is pretty similar to s30(2) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988].
I would greatly appreciate if French readers could provide any insights as to the judicial interpretation of these French copyright law provisions.