The Dutch union for image designers Pictoright proceeded against Art & Allposters, a company that transfers the images of posters to canvas. The ink is in fact removed and stuck on the canvas. These were all posters that had been made with the consent of the copyright owner. But could it be argued that the copyright owners hence also had agreed to producing canvas carrying with the work?
This made me think of an old landmark case about calendars of the (in the Netherlands) wellknown artist Rien Poortvliet. A trader cut the beautiful images from the calendar, put them into a frame and sold them making a good profit. This was a making public for which Poortvliet had not given consent. Calendars are intended for another market than framed images, so said the Court of Appeal and the Dutch Supreme Court.
This criterium for assessing a copyright infringement also returned in the Art & Allposters matter. However, in this event the District Court of Roermond held that posters are sold within the same market as canvas images. Canvas may be a bit more expensive and more durable, but obviously that is not enough to make it an infringement. This is not a new making public. Neither does the District Court hold that this should be deemed copying the work of art. After making a copy there should be at least one additional carrier of the work. Here one begins with one poster and ends up with a canvas; the poster has vanished.
The copyright lawyer of the artist had also argued that the personality rights had been violated. This argument was not followed either. Hence Art & Allposters may continue to pimp posters into canvas carriers. I bet that Pictoright will appeal against this copyright judgment.
Maarten Haak
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
The Dutch union for image designers Pictoright proceeded against Art & Allposters, a company that transfers the images of posters to canvas. The ink is in fact removed and stuck on the canvas. These were all posters that had been made with the consent of the copyright owner. But could it be argued that the copyright owners hence also had agreed to producing canvas carrying with the work?
This made me think of an old landmark case about calendars of the (in the Netherlands) wellknown artist Rien Poortvliet. A trader cut the beautiful images from the calendar, put them into a frame and sold them making a good profit. This was a making public for which Poortvliet had not given consent. Calendars are intended for another market than framed images, so said the Court of Appeal and the Dutch Supreme Court.
This criterium for assessing a copyright infringement also returned in the Art & Allposters matter. However, in this event the District Court of Roermond held that posters are sold within the same market as canvas images. Canvas may be a bit more expensive and more durable, but obviously that is not enough to make it an infringement. This is not a new making public. Neither does the District Court hold that this should be deemed copying the work of art. After making a copy there should be at least one additional carrier of the work. Here one begins with one poster and ends up with a canvas; the poster has vanished.
The copyright lawyer of the artist had also argued that the personality rights had been violated. This argument was not followed either. Hence Art & Allposters may continue to pimp posters into canvas carriers. I bet that Pictoright will appeal against this copyright judgment.
Maarten Haak