As reported by several French newspapers [
here and
here],
the “Gruppo Mondiale”, a company incorporated in Lichtenstein, is on trial in
the Paris criminal court for counterfeiting and false advertising for having
sold several copies of Auguste Rodin’s sculptures.
According to a court expert, some 1,700 of such copies have
been sold, in a scheme on a scale which has been described as “quasi
industrial” by the District Attorney (DA), who has asked the court to levy a
150,000 Euros fine. The DA has also asked the court to sentence Gary Snell, an
American allegedly managing the Gruppo Mondiale company, to eight months in
prison and a 30,000 Euros fine.
The case is interesting because Auguste Rodin died in
November 1917 and thus his works are in the public domain. So why is it
possible to file a suit alleging that some of Rodin’s works have been
counterfeited?
|
Eeet iz a reproduction, oui? |
Under
article 123-1 of the French Intellectual Property code,
authors enjoy patrimonial rights during their lifetime, which include the
exclusive right to exploit their works in any form whatsoever and to derive
monetary profit from it. These rights survive the author’s death for seventy
years.
Also, under article
L.121-1 of the same code, authors have
moral rights, that is, the right to respect for their name, authorship and
work. Such right is “
perpetual,
inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the
heirs of the author. Exercise may be
conferred on another person under the provisions of a will.”
Auguste Rodin donated all his works to the French government
and it is the
Musée Rodin in Paris
which is vested with the moral rights in these works by a
February 1993 decree.
Article 2.5 of this decree defines what is considered to be first editions of Rodin
bronzes: they must be taken from the
molds and plaster models in the
MuséeRodin collections; these editions are limited to twelve, numbered from 1/8
to 8/8 and I/IV to IV/ V, including existing editions.
While French law does not prevent copying Rodin’s works,
they must be clearly marked as such, because under article 8 of the
Decree No.81-255 of March 3, 1981 about fraud prevention in art and collectibles
transactions, “
any facsimile, molding,
copy or other reproduction of a work of art or a collectible must be designated
as such.”
The DA argued that even though Rodin's work are in the
public domain and may thus be reproduced freely, such reproductive freedom must
be exercised with respect for the moral rights of the author. Both the moral
rights of respect for the work and the author’s name are at stake in this case.
The right of respect for the author’s name has not been
respected here, according to the DA. Snell allegedly bought original Rodin
plasters and Gruppo Mondiale used them to create molds. The statues have then
been mass-produced by a foundry from these molds. Some of these reproductions
sported a Rodin signature and sometimes even the mark of the foundry used by
Rodin, the Rudier foundry, instead of the mark of the Italian foundry who
actually manufactured these copies. This would violate Rodin’s perpetual moral
rights in his name. As such, the DA argued that these reproductions have to be
considered as counterfeits under French law.
Also, some of the reproductions were so poorly made that the
DA also argued that they were also a violation of Rodin’s moral right to
respect of his works, claiming the copies betrayed the artist’s vision.
These reproductions were not sold in France, and the defense
is arguing that the French law cannot apply to the case. But the DA is arguing that
they were sold on a web site which could be accessed from France.
The court will render its judgment next month.
Reproduction of Rodin's sculptures isn't new - I was given poor-quality copies of The Kiss and The Thinker (each about 20cm in height) towards the end of the 1960s. I'm now wondering if these were made after 1967 so (a) when the (then) relevant period of copyright expired and (b) before the UK woke up to the power of moral rights
ReplyDeleteThe copies that reproduced the original french foundries mark provably do involve counterfeiting, and the really badly made copies may involve moral rights.
ReplyDeleteBut surely, reproducing the signature is simply part and parcel of accurately reproducing any signed art work? For example- Are the millions of copies of 'sunflowers' that reproduce the signature 'Vincent' a violation of moral rights?
In fact surely reproducing a artwork without the artists signature, would itself be a breach of the moral right of recognition as the Author of the original art work?
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted that Gruppo Mondiale and Gary Snell were found innocent and all of Musee Rodin's demands were rejected. As Musee Rodin produces bronzes this was really a commercial dispute. They lost their monopoly when the artists work fell into public domain in the 1980's
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe works of Auguste Rodin and their intellectual property have been in public domain since 1987 because, in line with the near-universally adopted Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the right to enforce copyright expires 70 years after an artist’s death.
The article contains a number of factual errors, namely:
Gruppo Mondiale/Gary Snell have NOT sold thousands of Rodin bronzes as alleged. Just over 600 bronzes of 60 different images have been produced. These were sold at a fraction of the cost of a lifetime bronze or of posthumous casts made by Musee Rodin.
Musee Rodin has cast and sold thousands of posthumous bronzes over the years.
Gary Snell did not manage Gruppo Mondiale.
The Rudier foundry mark was never used on the bronzes. There were never any artist signatures posthumously placed on any bronzes other than the ones placed on the plasters by the artist.
The bronzes cast do NOT represent a transgression of the Rodin estate “moral right”. Numerous experts, including the former employee of Musee Rodin Alain Busier, have praised their quality. All cast have clearly used accurate and period casting techniques, correct measurements, correct patinas and are cast from Rodin foundry plasters. They have been publicly exhibited throughout the world.
In a 2014 action against Gruppo Mondiale & Gary Snell the French court delivered a judgment stating that the French State had no jurisdiction over the Snell bronzes and that French law was therefore not applicable.
Regarding the McLaren Museum, the tax structure failed and both the museum and Snell lost significant amounts of money rather than profiting.
http://www.bbeyondmagazine.com/rodin-art-gary-snell-france-legal-case/