An illicit work is nonetheless protected by copyright

TJ Lille, September 6, 2024

Between 2014 and 2015, artist Anonyme covered a state-owned blockhouse on an Opal Coast beach with fragments of mirrors, without first seeking the owner's permission. He called the installation "Réfléchir". He then applied to the sub-prefecture for authorization to complete and protect the installation. Authorization is granted on condition that he secures the site and the installation.

In 2016, theCommunauté Urbaine offered to pay for the work involved in securing the blockhouse, in return for a non-exclusive, non-commercial transfer of the rights to the image of the work "Réfléchir", as part of its public service and promotion of the region.

The artist declines
In 2020, he proposed a three-year transfer of copyright to the Hauts de France region, the Communauté Urbaine and the Commune, at a remuneration of €120,000/year.

The following month, he served formal notice on the Urban Community, the Tourist Office and the Economic Development Agency to pay €300,000 for the "continuous, consistent and regular commercial use" of his work from 2015 to 2020. He then summoned the same parties in summary proceedings to suppress all exploitation of his work and obtain compensation of 300,000 euros.

In 2021, the installation was withdrawn.

The Lille Court of First Instance, called upon to hear the case, ruled

- that the work, even though it had been deliberately installed illegally and without the owner's consent, was still protected by copyright.

- that its incidental reproduction would have been lawful

- that the use of its image in communication and promotional campaigns for the region constituted infringement.

And ordered the local players to pay damages of €23,000 (+ €3,500 in legal costs).

Keep this decision in mind, photographers who may be called upon to photograph graffiti and other illicit graphic works.