There are two trials of the book "Lose the Head" François-Marie Banier (Gallimard October 2005).
The author combines photographic portraits of famous people but also marginal and anonymous.
Three people identified in the book challenges the publication of their photographs in court. If the joint hearing of the first two peronnes has not yet occurred, the original ruling has vindicated the author / photographer.
The first case concerns a portrait of a woman sitting on a park bench in Paris. She st being mobile calls taking his dog on a leash. This is Isabella of Puyégur Chastenet, Press. She claims 200,000 euros in damages for invasion of privacy. She declares that her refusal when she saw she was photographed.
For the judge, only a publication contrary to the dignity of the person or it attaches to the consequences of a particular gravity induces the rule of law in the image. We come here in the second argument of the complainant: the publication of his portrait in an album "dedicated primarily to the exclusion and marginalization" prejudicial to him in his work. The court responded that provides no evidence to convince a particular harm (...) heartfelt reactions other than some of his relatives to see in a "museum of horrors."
The court added that if the right image is paramount, Photograhy on the spot or in the street would be compromised.
The complainant will appeal. His lawyer says the right to information should prevail when the informatin is proven, for example a street demonstration. But here, there's no news. Why only celebrities would have their image rights protected.
Counsel contends the photographer: these people famous or not, marginal or not, are part of humanity that Bani has portrayed in his many books. They are not ridiculed. The judge said a inconvenience to be in a book is not prejudiced.
Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris Judgement of the press room of the September 12, 2000
Adriana S. wife K. / SA Design Society Press ("SCP")
Illegal content - image rights - photographs - invasion of privacy - website - prejudice
Facts and procedure
Given the subpoena issued October 25, 1999 by Adriana S. wife K. cons Society Design Release ("SCP"), editor of Interview magazine, for having violated his privacy and his image rights in the No. 85 of August 1999 publication, by Published:
first section, said cover by a full-page photograph of the applicant, with the caption "Adriana K. - all about business Top of Models ", article appearing on page 63, a second article appearing on page 88 under the heading" Seen on the Internet ", with 6 shots of the plaintiff; Given the claims made by Adriana K. seeking, under the benefit of the provisional execution of the sentence the defendant:
to pay damages amounting to 200,000 francs in compensation for moral injury and F 300 000 in compensation for his financial loss and career to publication, under penalty of 50,000 francs a number of delays, a statement to appear on the front page of the magazine interview, the payment of compensation 20 000 F on the basis of Article 700 of the NCPC.
Given the defenses raised by the CPA which advocate:
dismissed the plaintiff on the grounds:. that the offending article does not infringe privacy or his or her right to the image, since it falls under freedom of information on career success of top models and images posted on internet , all the photographs at issue are the dummy in the exercise of his business;
. that the alleged injury is not established because, as regards his injury Financial, Adriana K. does not pay any part in debates and in terms of its moral, it is non-existent in terms of complacency which she demonstrated with the press in the evocation of his life with footballer K. ;
the payment of a sum of 20 000 F on the basis of Article 700 of the NCPC. Given the closing order issued May 23, 2000;
Discussion on invasion of privacy Whereas Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code establishes the principle that "everyone has the right to respect for his privacy" and that this right does not suffer any exception for public figures, whatever their fame, that they are therefore entitled to invoke to determine for themselves the limits of what can be released, except to demonstrate to the newspaper, that the disclosure is justified by the news or has already been revealed to the public's own interest made him lose, somehow, his private character;
Whereas the plaintiff challenges the offending article, under the violation of his privacy, denouncing the passage which states:
"It requires a contract to have a day off at the same time as her footballer husband! But its success more celebrity and professional career, they say, is boosted since her marriage. "
That, however, relieve the second sentence of this statement can not be regarded as intrusive to privacy, as where:
it is a simple commentary focused on the career of the applicant; the mention of her marriage with footballer K. falls over his private life under the publicity itself is given in all the press that only the first sentence is a more professional look, but it is insufficient to characterize any violation of his privacy, whereas:
the contract mentioned within its working life, which is traditionally excluded from the scope of protection of privacy, the evocation of his "day off at the same time as her footballer husband" is far too brief and incidental to be a real information affecting his private life; Whereas, accordingly, Adriana K. will be rejected on that ground application;
On the infringement to the image
Whereas every person has his or her image, an integral part of his personality, an exclusive right that allows him to object to its reproduction without permission express and special, so that everyone has the opportunity to determine the use that can be done by choosing particular, the support it considers appropriate to its eventual release, that the requirement of authorization by the person photographed is temperament may find that when the law is concerned, equally important, the public to legitimate information, in the sense intended by the European Convention;
In the instant case, the newspaper interview contained several pictures of Adriana K. ;
What if the defendant submits, without being contradicted, that all the cliches disputed the account in exercising his professional activity, the fact remains that their publication here is legitimized by any information related to the news itself;
What effect, the photograph of the applicant front page coverage can not be justified by the announcement of an article on "business tops" that could, at most, explain the photograph illustrating the article on page 63 and is, obviously, a "hook" to attract the reader, in addition, the reproduction of photographs portraying Adriana K., who would posted on a website does not constitute, assuming that actual dissemination, information itself, as well as the web has millions of other shots of the same nature;
That the publication of these photographs in the newspaper interview therefore required a prior authorization of the model whose absence creates an infringement of his image rights;
The damage
Whereas it should be recalled that the transgression of image rights is likely to cause, in its holder, psychological damage and, where appropriate, a loss of property when the person by his conduct or his fame, gives business value to its image;
In the instant case, Adriana K. alleged financial harm, recalling the words of a decision of the Court of Appeal in Paris on November 9, 1982 stating that the injury must take into account "the amount of compensation would have received if he had authorized a professional model the publication of these photographs "that despite the recall, which should have caused the court to provide the parts necessary for the assessment of the" price of its image, "the plaintiff fails to pay the debates no information on loss of earnings suffered as a result;
That in addition, it alleges damage to his career, without establishing any evidence;
That failure to produce any evidence it can not be granted its first head Application;
Whereas, moreover, Adriana K. complains of pain and suffering, which is aggravated by the connotation of malicious text, suggesting that his career should his success at "push" advertising as a result of her marriage to Christian K. ;
What if the existence of moral damage is acquired as a result of using, without his knowledge, an image that control means, the importance of the latter is characterized:
or by a distortion of the image, which is consistent with that she agrees to give of herself in other circumstances, neither the About the alleged malice, which refers to her marriage she herself has agreed to pay a special media; that consequently, his pain and suffering can only be pure principle and will be sufficiently compensated by allocating a F $ 1 as damages, without q
hether any need to order In addition, a measure of publication for dissemination back now over a year;
Whereas the costs incurred by the plaintiff in this proceeding warrant an award of compensation on the 8000 F basis of Article 700 of the NCPC;
Whereas the provisional execution, which is not incompatible with the nature of the case and allows prompt compensation may be ordered. The decision
The court ruling in public, for contradictory judgments appealable:
. Society condemns Design Release ("SCP") to pay Adriana K. the $ 1 F as damages and compensation to 8000 F as a contribution to the unrecoverable costs of the proceeding;
. dismisses the remainder of his claims;
. orders the provisional execution of this decision;
. Society condemns Design Press the costs.
