The Daily Telegraph reports on a copyright dispute that has arisen out of the successful French film “Etre et Avoir”. The film recorded a year in the life of a one-class school in the Auvergne mountains and its teacher Georges Lopez. Now Monsieur Lopez is claiming that he has copyright in the lessons that were featured in the film as they were his own original creations. However, the film’s director, Nicolas Philbert has said that the film was made with Lopez’s complete cooperation and that, in any event, any copyright would be owned by state education system.
The IPKat makes the following comments: (i) before embarking on a project of this nature, the parties should ensure that their respective rights are clearly agreed on and recorded in writing; (ii) from a legal point of view the fact that the film was made with Lopez’s complete cooperation would not appear to have any bearing on the issue of ownership of the copyright, although presumably M Philibert means to say that M Lopez consented to the waiving of any rights that he had; (iii) since a “lesson” in itself is not a recognised category of copyright-protected work, Monsieur Lopez is presumably claiming that it is a literary or dramatic work (since he did not make the film and the film is in any event a free-standing work apart from the lessons, his rights would presumably vest in the film’ subject-matter only and not the film itself); (iv) nothing has been said about the role of the pupils in the lessons. To the extent that their participation was required, could they be said to be either performers or joint authors of the work ultimately performed?
Find out about the Auvergne region here
Learn to tell your etre from your avoir here
Go back to school here
The IPKat makes the following comments: (i) before embarking on a project of this nature, the parties should ensure that their respective rights are clearly agreed on and recorded in writing; (ii) from a legal point of view the fact that the film was made with Lopez’s complete cooperation would not appear to have any bearing on the issue of ownership of the copyright, although presumably M Philibert means to say that M Lopez consented to the waiving of any rights that he had; (iii) since a “lesson” in itself is not a recognised category of copyright-protected work, Monsieur Lopez is presumably claiming that it is a literary or dramatic work (since he did not make the film and the film is in any event a free-standing work apart from the lessons, his rights would presumably vest in the film’ subject-matter only and not the film itself); (iv) nothing has been said about the role of the pupils in the lessons. To the extent that their participation was required, could they be said to be either performers or joint authors of the work ultimately performed?
Find out about the Auvergne region here
Learn to tell your etre from your avoir here
Go back to school here
COPYRIGHT: ETRE ET AVOIR?
![<strong>COPYRIGHT: ETRE ET AVOIR?</strong>]()
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html