French Law's Regulation Of Strict Interpretation

One of the fundamental principles of French copyright constabulary is the regulation whereby whatever license/assignment of a copyright involvement past times an writer is to survive strictly interpreted such that whatever correct non expressly mentioned is non granted.

An appellate ruling past times the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence (8 Feb 2018) is illustrative of this.  Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 professional person lensman had licensed the rights to i of his photographs to an advertising way for utilization inward a real-estate promoter's brochure together with website for the cost of 844 euros.

He subsequently learned that the photograph was used, without his authority (but amongst credit, such that in that place was no effect regarding his correct of attribution) inward an advertising campaign, appearing inter alia inward Paris Match, the well-known magazine.

He thence brought legal activeness against the way for copyright infringement.

The Court started past times recalling the provisions of Section L.131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code pursuant to which the license (or assignment) of copyright is dependent area to the status that each correct survive distinctly mentioned together with that the license (or assignment) survive delineated amongst abide by to its scope, purpose, territory together with duration.  This is the stautory provision that forms the foundation of the regulation of strict interpretation.

On this basis, the Court agreed amongst the lensman that the licensed utilization was indeed strictly limited to utilization inward the brochure together with the website and cypher else.  It was not, equally the accused had argued, "implicit" that the license also covered the written press together with periodicals (such equally Paris Match):

"The license relates to the example of a brochure together with in that place is no limited advert of a press advertisement, such that utilization inward Paris Match goes beyond the authority that was given."

In an interesting aside, the Court rejects the defendant's argument that the quantum of the license fee could survive used to construe the orbit of the license; accused had argued that the sum of 844 euros was much also high to survive consistent amongst the limited orbit claimed past times the lensman together with militated against such an interpretation.