US Court Won't Enforce French Copyright Ruling

by Glen Shapiro, LawAndTax-News.com, New York

11 October 2005

Southern District of New York Judge, Gerard Lynch has ruled against two French fashion designers in a dispute over copyright, and has stated that he will not uphold a French court ruling in favour of the two plaintiffs.

The case of Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc arose because the latter firm published photographs on the internet of models wearing products created by Sarl Louis Feraud International and SA Pierre Balman.

The plaintiffs alleged that Viewfinder had made unauthorised use of their intellectual property, and as Viewfinder failed to answer the complaint in France, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris found against it in May 2001.

However, according to a New York Law Journal report on the matter, Judge Lynch found that the US firm's publication of the pictures was protected in the United States under the First Amendment.

"Fashion shows are a matter of great public interest, for artistic as well as commercial purposes," he explained, continuing:

"These shows are open to the public, including the press - indeed, defendant's employees and agents were able to take the photographs at issue because they were given access by invitation ... and the extensive coverage given to such events in various mass media makes clear that there is widespread public interest in these matters."

Speaking with regard to the difference between the French and American justice systems, he observed that:

"Many democratic countries, which share our general commitment to human rights and maintain free and open societies in which freedom of speech and thought is fully respected, differ from us in the resolution of certain questions involving the balance between freedom of expression and the maintenance of ordered liberty, particularly in areas where freedom of expression may be in tension with the protection of other human rights, such as equality or human dignity."

"Even in those areas, however, where reasonable people and decent societies may reasonably disagree, American courts have recognized that foreign judgments that run afoul of First Amendment values are inconsistent with our notions of what is fair and just, and conflict with the strong public policy of our state."

Judge Lynch went on to disagree with the plaintiffs' assertion that the fact that the website contained virtually no written information to accompany the pictures meant that First Amendment protections could not be invoked, arguing that:

"A picture, as the cliché would have it, is worth a thousand words, and the defendant's decision to forgo an effort to describe the designers' creations verbally in favor of a more efficient visual presentation does not defeat protection."

Recommended