# Primary Sources on Copyright - Record Viewer
Court of Cassation on sculptures, Paris (1814)

Source: Bibliothèque universitaire de Poitiers (SCD) : Recueil général des lois et des arrêts (Recueil Sirey), 1er série 1791-1830, 4e volume - 1812-1814

Citation:
Court of Cassation on sculptures, Paris (1814), 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

            Chapter 1 Page 1 of 2 total




630      (13 Nov. 1814)                  JURISPRUDENCE OF THE COURT OF CASSATION                  (17 Nov. 1814)
______________________________


[3rd column:]

COUNTERFEIT – SCULPTURE – DEPOSIT
BY LAW.


The counterfeiting of a work of sculpture is
      an offence like the illegal copying of a text or
      an engraving.
(Code pénal, 425.) (3)
The author of a work of sculpture is not
      subject to the requirement to deposit two copies

________

(3) This question arises from the silence or obscurity of the law with
regard to works of sculpture. Neither the law of 19 July 1793, nor the
Code pénal explicitly mention such productions: the
law of 1793, in its art. 7, merely speaks of property in productions
of the mind or of genius within the domain of the fine arts
, and the
Code pénal, in its art. 427, which punishes counterfeiting,
limits itself to including in the things which are to be confiscated
according to the penalty decreed, the moulds or dies of the
counterfeited objects
. – All the same, these statements do not allow
one to doubt that the legislator also intended to protect, against
counterfeiting, works of sculpture, which, with as much right as the works
of literature, painting, engraving, and music – which are named
specifically – ought to figure amongst the productions of the mind
and of genius.
      In this respect, the old regulations had taken care of what was
necessary for placing the works of sculpture under protection from
plagiarism and counterfeiting. For example, one could cite a
sentence de police of 11 July 1702, which prohibits
founders, on pain of a fine of 500 livres, from counter-casting
[contremouler] or giving to other people the works which they
have been given to found by sculptors, and which also prohibits
sculptors from sharing with anyone else the models which they
have made for the founders or which the founders have
communicated to them; – The new

    


No Transcription available.

Our Partners


Copyright statement

You may copy and distribute the translations and commentaries in this resource, or parts of such translations and commentaries, in any medium, for non-commercial purposes as long as the authorship of the commentaries and translations is acknowledged, and you indicate the source as Bently & Kretschmer (eds), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) (www.copyrighthistory.org).

You may not publish these documents for any commercial purposes, including charging a fee for providing access to these documents via a network. This licence does not affect your statutory rights of fair dealing.

Although the original documents in this database are in the public domain, we are unable to grant you the right to reproduce or duplicate some of these documents in so far as the images or scans are protected by copyright or we have only been able to reproduce them here by giving contractual undertakings. For the status of any particular images, please consult the information relating to copyright in the bibliographic records.


Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, 10 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, UK