The Lille
High Court rendered a judgment on
September 24th, 2015, ordering champagne house, Vranken Pommery, to pay
€ 133,500 by way of damages to an artist named Anita Molinero due to the
fact that the former had the latter’s sculpture incinerated without her
knowledge or consent. The judgment is of
particular interest for its copyright aspects.
Vranken
Pommery is a champagne house which commissioned Anita Molinero’s to create a sculpture to be used in its exhibition ‘Experience Pommery#10’. The
resultant sculpture (Salto Yano) was on exhibition for few months. After being warned by the fire
department about the inflammable material used in the work, it was
dismantled with Anita Molinero’s permission and stored in Pommery’s custody.
In
March 2014, Salto Yano was, unbeknownst to Anita Molinero, destroyed by a
cleaning company acting on instructions from Vranken Pommery,.
The artist
brought legal proceedings against the champagne house on contractual and
copyright grounds.
The former
were based on the custodial agreement
between the parties as, under the commission agreement, the sculpture was to remain
the artist’s property (albeit with an option to purchase in favour of Vranken
Pommery) but was to be held in the champagne house’s custody.
On the contractual claim, the Court found in the
artist’s favour as the champagne house had failed to live up to the fundamental
duty of a custodian, viz. return of the
object held in custody in its original state. Damages were set at €116,500 as this was the
price set in the parties’ agreement in the event that Vranken Pommery elected to exercise
its option to purchase the work.
Also on the
contractual claim, the champagne company was found to have caused non-pecuniary
harm to the artist due to the fact that the destruction was deliberate and total
and, moreover, was carried out by a cleaning company; this was held to be
humiliating for the artist. Vranken
Pommery was ordered to pay € 5,000 to the artist for inflicting moral harm.
As regards
the artist’s copyright claims, these
related to her moral right and to her economic right.
As regards
the moral right claim, the Court awarded € 7,000 to the artist for violation of
her moral right as a result of the total destruction of the sculpture. While not expressly stated by the Court, this
no doubt relates specifically to the right of integrity.
As regards
the economic copyright claim, the Court held that the total destruction of the
sculpture deprived Anita Molinero of the opportunity to publicly display her
work in future exhibitions (the right of public display being a specific
application of the broader right of communication to the public). Consequently,
the court ordered the champagne company to pay € 5,000 as damages to the artist
in this respect.
Vranken
Pommery has announced that it intends to appeal this ruling on the grounds inter alia of the excessive quantum of
damages awarded in light, in particular, of the price Ms. Molinero’s works have
fetched to date.
No comments:
Post a Comment