Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Court of Cassation on artistic property, Paris (1841)
Source: N/A
Citation:
Court of Cassation on artistic property, Paris (1841), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
1 translated page
Chapter 1 Page 2
COURT OF CASSATION. 323
[2nd column:]
[...]
DECISION (after deliberation in the council chamber)
THE COURT; - In view of articles 1 and 2 of the law of 19 July 1793 regulating the
rights of authors and painters;
Whereas the special law, namely that of 19 July 1793, regulates the rights
of authors and painters; and it is stated in the 1st article of this law that painters
and draughtsmen who produce pictures or drawings shall enjoy throughout their entire
life the exclusive right to sell, authorize for sale and distribute their works in
the territory of the Republic, and to transfer that property in full or in part;
And this law thus establishes in principle that the sale of a painting does not
take away the right to reproduce it by a different art, namely that of engraving,
unless the painter has transferred this right by a specific contractual stipulation;
Whereas it is evident, in actual fact, from the contested decision, that
Baron Gros did transfer to M. Vallot the right to engrave his painting La
Bataille des Pyramides; and, consequently, nobody else but M. Vallot
could, without the latter's authorisation, engrave this painting;
And it was the same for those additions which were made later on, in regard
of which Mme Dufresne, whose status as a wife sharing in her husband Baron Gros's goods,
and in the usufruct of these goods, has been disputed by no one, held the same rights
as Baron Gros would have had himself, in particular the right of engraving, which
neither of the two had transferred to anyone;
And, this notwithstanding, M. Gavard has published an engraving containing the
original painting [le tableau primitif], as well as the additions made to it, without
having obtained permission for this, either from M. Vallot or from Baroness Gros;
And he therefore incurred the penalties which are applicable to counterfeiters,
in spite of which the contested decision discharged him from this indictment, on the
grounds that the sale of a painting must necessarily entail the transfer of the right
of engraving it; so for this reason the said decision has violated art. 1 of the law
of 19 July 1793 and art. 425 of the Code pénal; - Overturn the decision.
Done on 23 July 1841 – Criminal Chamber – M. de Crouseilhes, f.f. depr. –
M. Romiguières, Reporter – M. Delapalme, Attorney General – Messrs Nachet and Scribe,
lawyers.
_______________
Translation by: Freya Baetens (p. 2)
Source: N/A
Citation:
Court of Cassation on artistic property, Paris (1841), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
1 translated page
Chapter 1 Page 2
[2nd column:]
[...]
rights of authors and painters;
Whereas the special law, namely that of 19 July 1793, regulates the rights
of authors and painters; and it is stated in the 1st article of this law that painters
and draughtsmen who produce pictures or drawings shall enjoy throughout their entire
life the exclusive right to sell, authorize for sale and distribute their works in
the territory of the Republic, and to transfer that property in full or in part;
And this law thus establishes in principle that the sale of a painting does not
take away the right to reproduce it by a different art, namely that of engraving,
unless the painter has transferred this right by a specific contractual stipulation;
Whereas it is evident, in actual fact, from the contested decision, that
Baron Gros did transfer to M. Vallot the right to engrave his painting La
Bataille des Pyramides; and, consequently, nobody else but M. Vallot
could, without the latter's authorisation, engrave this painting;
And it was the same for those additions which were made later on, in regard
of which Mme Dufresne, whose status as a wife sharing in her husband Baron Gros's goods,
and in the usufruct of these goods, has been disputed by no one, held the same rights
as Baron Gros would have had himself, in particular the right of engraving, which
neither of the two had transferred to anyone;
And, this notwithstanding, M. Gavard has published an engraving containing the
original painting [le tableau primitif], as well as the additions made to it, without
having obtained permission for this, either from M. Vallot or from Baroness Gros;
And he therefore incurred the penalties which are applicable to counterfeiters,
in spite of which the contested decision discharged him from this indictment, on the
grounds that the sale of a painting must necessarily entail the transfer of the right
of engraving it; so for this reason the said decision has violated art. 1 of the law
of 19 July 1793 and art. 425 of the Code pénal; - Overturn the decision.
Done on 23 July 1841 – Criminal Chamber – M. de Crouseilhes, f.f. depr. –
M. Romiguières, Reporter – M. Delapalme, Attorney General – Messrs Nachet and Scribe,
lawyers.
Translation by: Freya Baetens (p. 2)