France: Law on national domain images changes

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

France: Law on national domain images changes

Sponsored by

beau-de-lomenie.png

A French court issued a ruling on April 13 2018 concerning the photographs of Chambord Castle used by Kronenbourg breweries in the context of an advertising campaign for one of their beers.

The case asked whether the castle, which is part of the public domain of the French state, can be reproduced without financial compensation or authorisation from the public institution.

Previously, commercial exploitation of a photograph of a private building has been allowed, without prior authorisation or any financial compensation, unless the photo caused abnormal disturbance to the owner of the building or if the owner had copyright on that building.

The court confirmed this ruling and rejected the argument that such commercial operation could be considered as private use of the public domain. Deciding differently would restrain the freedom of entrepreneurship.

This decision was, however, made prior to Law No. 2016-925 of July 7 2016 on the freedom of creation, architecture and heritage.

Now a specific system is set up for image rights of goods falling under the category of "national domain". A first list of six monuments and estates was submitted by the Ministry of Culture and Communication and validated by the Historical Monuments National Commission. On this list were the Chambord Estate, the Castle of Angers, the Palais du Rhin in Strasburg, the Estate of Pau, the Louvre and Tuileries Estates in Paris (1st) and the Palais de l'Elysée in Paris (8th).

Article L. 621-42 of the Heritage Code means that prior authorisation and potential financial compensation are now the rule for using an image of such buildings.

However, such authorisation is not required when the image also pursues a cultural, educational, research or information purpose or is linked to a public service task.

A decree should provide details about the concept of "commercial purpose".

marie.jpg

Aurélia Marie


Cabinet Beau de Loménie

158, rue de l’Université

F - 75340 Paris Cedex 07 France

Tel: +33 1 44 18 89 00

Fax: +33 1 44 18 04 23

contact@bdl-ip.com

www.bdl-ip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article