Germany Says Taking Photos Of Food Infringes The Chef's Copyright
from the no-#foodporn-please,-we're-german dept
Over the years, Techdirt has had a couple of stories about misguided chefs who think that people taking photos of their food are "stealing" something -- their culinary soul, perhaps. According to an article in the newspaper Die Welt, it seems that this is not just a matter of opinion in Germany, but established law (original in German):
In individual cases, shared pictures may be illegal. At worst, a copyright warning notice might come fluttering to the social media user. For carefully-arranged food in a famous restaurant, the cook is regarded as the creator of a work. Before it can be made public on Facebook & Co., permission must first be asked of the master chef.
Apparently, this situation goes back to a German court judgment from 2013, which widened copyright law to include the applied arts too. As a result, the threshold for copyrightability was lowered considerably, with the practical consequence that it was easier for chefs to sue those who posted photographs of their creations without permission. The Die Welt article notes that this ban can apply even to manifestly unartistic piles of food dumped unceremoniously on a plate if a restaurant owner puts up a notice refusing permission for photos to be taken of its food.
It's sad to see this kind of ownership mentality has been accepted by the German courts. As a Techdirt article from 2010 explained, there's plenty of evidence that it is precisely the lack of copyright in food that has led to continuing innovation -- just as it has in other fields that manage to survive without this particular intellectual monopoly, notably in fashion.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chefs, copyright, food, foodporn, germany, infringement, photographs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sounds like...
I would think the more secure would consider it free advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can't or refuse to pay then the chef can take you to court and fine you tens of thousands of dollars per meal you've eaten from the chef for pirating his food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Years ago somebody trolled the usenet porn groups with pictures of exactly that. Would've made an interesting court case not only for any copyright claim, but 'truth in labeling' regulations as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While I agree...
... you need the caveat: under US copyright law.
As this is Germany we are talking about, the law is different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A photograph is not a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We must stop copycats
* Shaving cream looks similar to whipped cream.
* Wax fruits and vegetables can look better than the real thing.
* That steaming hot sizzling look can be replicated with bits of dry ice.
* And many other techniques used to create the beautiful food pictured on the overhead menus at your local McFastFood place.
If a cheap copycat made food using techniques like this to replicate a fantastic appearance, they would steal all of the business from the famous chef!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We must stop copycats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Up next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Up next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flawed Logic
Sure I accept that chefs can have copyright if they keep their artistic pudding to themselves when they still have copyright on the videos and photos. Established law has never stopped anyone copyright the recipe when no two creations are EXACTLY alike.
The killer situation though is that the chef has sold you the food at the point they have handed it to you meaning they then lack all control. This is the same as buying an oil painting when you can photo and video this all you want where the original artist then can't stop you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flawed Logic
Maybe it's a plan to make the world free of photographs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flawed Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flawed Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flawed Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I bought a print of a painting, I would be able to take a picture of it and use it for any non-commercial purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't my purchase of the dish give me some limited right of ownership of that specific plate of food?
Answer:
Apparently, this situation goes back to a German court judgment from 2013, which widened copyright law to include the applied arts too. As a result, the threshold for copyrightability was lowered considerably, with the practical consequence that it was easier for chefs to sue those who posted photographs of their creations without permission.
No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lost of crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A lost of crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A lost of crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
This is like the notion you kids have that because got hold of a DVD that you then actually own the movie, the content, and can copy it as wish. -- NO, you can't.
Laws like this simply clarify that creators have ALL the rights, and that consumers (here literally), have NONE. -- Laws are needed precisely because you kids assert that you can just take anything and everything without permission. You do not at all concern yourself with the making of products, only at taking them. Your only creativity is trying to find weasel-words to excuse it.
It's really astounding that Techdirt and its pirate-fanboys keep their kleptomania intact despite the simple principles and court losses. You are SO last century, kids, and because addicted to crap entertainments, unable to change. Instead of copyright falling, it's being enforced more. -- Read about UK successfully shutting down pirate sites by way of stopping advertising income. You are losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
I also don't understand the assertion that creators have all the rights. I believe that they don't, legally or ethically. Legally, there are always exceptions, maybe by a food inspector or something. You're making false generalizations.
Glyn Moody just hates it when trolls enforce imaginary ownership of ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
Nobody is pirating the FOOD, nor anything else.
If I PAID for that food, I'll bloody well take a photo of it if I so please.
Once paid for it's MINE, not the Chef's. I get to say what I do with MY meal, not some Chef.
... no matter where the restaurant is.'
jesus, pretty soon photographers will have to scuttle off into dark places with the things they BUY and OWN just to take a picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
The fact that this is moronic nonsense appears to have sailed over its Red Scare-malformed cranium at some point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
I can't imagine this would bode well for him or the restaurant, but fuck it.
Sometimes in order to point out there's a hole in the boat, you've got to let the damn thing sink!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sentence says you didn't read the article before you lept in to comment
What chef? What claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
What are you, fucking 12 years old or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
I'm waiting for the ultimate end to this idiocy - the claim that those of us who choose to cook at home instead of eating out are "pirating" and responsible for any nearby restaurant closures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A camera doesn't give anyone equal status with the chef. Gadgets don't confer rights, certainly not over creators, let alone for commercial use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
German law
But then France wants to say pictures of the Eiffel Tower (over 100 years old now) are somehow "copyrighted" by and illegal. Congratulations EU members, collectively your IP laws make even less sense than those of the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: German law
There's a 'work created during the course of employment' clause, which means that Max Spielmann is the copyright holder of passport photos taken of me there, rather than me or the person who actually took them. Basically, yes, the restaurant is actually the copyright owner rather than the chef, despite the fact that the decision misleadingly says otherwise.
But then France wants to say pictures of the Eiffel Tower (over 100 years old now) are somehow "copyrighted" by (sic) and illegal.
Actually, the claim is that the light display on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted, so you can get slapped with a C&D for photographing or painting it at night, but daytime images are just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral panic
So when I eat the food, am I violating the moral rights of the chef by 'destroying' their 'carefully-arranged art piece'? 0_0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral panic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral panic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Der Spiegel: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-ind ustrial-expansion-a-710976.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
36 hours later...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if I eat it, and poop it out, does it still belong to the chef?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else wonder why nobody gives two shits about copyright? It's because of the idiots that do, and do so in the stupidest ways possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nutjob Restaurants
http://www.spectator.co.uk/author/tanya-gold/
http://harpers.org/archive/2015/09/a-goose-in -a-dress/
(first page)
One of my father's bon mots appears to apply to this kind of restaurant: "A Victorian servant class... and while they... [considering voice] probably... would not put poison in one's food, they might [rising New England honk] very well urinate in it!"
That said, it is probably wise to avoid certain types of over-egotistical chefs on general principles. Someone who is that sick has probably...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nutjob Restaurants
There are three basic forms of service, known in the industry as quick service, family style and white table cloth. These terms are outdated, and do not represent the full spectrum of available services. A more comprehensive analysis might include such behaviors known as American Service (plated in the kitchen and delivered to the table), Base Plate Service (everything is presented on a dish on top of the base plate that is present when one sits down and the silverware present has only to do with the current or next course, and is replaced with each course), Modified Base Plate. which has many variations of the afore mentioned depending on the desires of the particular operation, Russian Service (where the food is plated to a tray and then is served from the tray to the plate at the table (not common at all, but I observed a banquet at the Waldorf Astoria being served this way, and it was both efficient and formal)) and French Service (where the food is either prepared, finished, or cooked entirely tableside on a rachaud set upon on a gueridon). There are more, but attention spans are limited, and teaching the how to's of any of these would require a different forum along with someone with better expertise than I to teach them.
When a restaurateur develops a restaurant, there are decisions made about (but probably not from this perspective) as to how pretentious they want to be. Some of that has to do with the clientele they wish to attract, and some of that has to do with either knowledge or ego. If a restaurant is charging $1000 a plate, there is a LOT of ego being served. It certainly does not have to do with strictly food cost.
People who attend restaurants often think they know a lot about what is going on in that restaurant, and actually don't. I have had reviewers rave about my fresh peas when all I did was treat my frozen peas (by definition already cooked) with respect. The chefs of Washington DC got a bunch of restaurant reviewers on a PSB program (a very long time ago) and tore them apart for many assumptions made by pretentious know it alls who actually knew very little).
I used to have to analyse restaurant performance, not for reviews, but to help them achieve their potential in their individual markets. Each one was different, and while I could discern certain issues from the dinning room, I did not get all the answers until kitchen observations were completed (such observations are NOT for the lay person).
So, take anything you read about restaurants with a grain of salt the size of Antarctica, until you have followed a particular reviewer for a long while, and understand how to contrast their written opinions with your actual experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nutjob Restaurants
Going by Tanya Gold's description, these high-end restaurants declare the chef to be the Living God, and strenuously attempt to get the diners to worship him. That is the very heart of a nut-cult, that the leader is God, and cannot be judged as a mortal man. It's the whole "cult of personality" business, similar in principle to that of Kim Jong Un in North Korea. The chef cannot admit that he is continuing a culinary tradition a couple of thousand years old, which is much bigger than any of its cooks, but he has to set himself up as a unique genius. I choose my deities with somewhat more care than that.
The high-end restaurant seems to cater to people who have neither intellect nor soul, who consequently have no conversation, and are likely to be recruited to the nut-cult-of-the-month, and take part in its Jonestown-like mass-suicide by cyanide-laced kool-aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes as much sense to me, anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of taking a picture of the food, take a picture of the dump after you've eaten the food, and credit the chef. "Unfortunately we can't show you what the food looks like due to chef's copyright, so here's what the food looks like after."
If the chef orders it taken down, he doesn't own the copyright on your poop. If he does, send it to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What, no copyright tariff on professional stoves and pans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]