Germany Says Taking Photos Of Food Infringes The Chef's Copyright 280
xPertCodert writes: According to this article in Der Welt (Google translate from German), in Germany if you take a picture of a dish in a restaurant without prior permission, you are violating chef's copyright for his creation and can be liable to pay a hefty fine. If this approach to foodporn will become universal, what will we put in our Instagrams? Techdirt reports: "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."
subjects in comments are stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would they sue in the first place? and miss out on free publicity
Re:subjects in comments are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would they sue in the first place? and miss out on free publicity
It's probably the pictures of their less attractive dishes they are worried about. The "look, this chicken was served to me at XXXX and it's still raw inside" posts you see on facebook.
Re: subjects in comments are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
So just move the food around a bit.. It is now your own creative work.. And take your photo.
The chicken is cut open? That was you.. Not the chef.
Send like a non story.. Could only be applied for a picture of an untouched plate..
Re: subjects in comments are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a derivative work to me.
Work for HIRE!! (Score:2)
I mean, you order the dish for your consumption (physically)...the copyright (if there is any which there should NOT be)...should be yours since it is a work for hire and you OWN it when you get served.
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases, work for hire requires that there be a contract in place, signing away the rights of the content creator to the entity hiring them. No such contract exists in a typical culinary setting, unless you're suggesting it's implied, which I would suspect would be a difficult thing to argue.
Disclaimer (in case it wasn't already obvious): IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bill is not a contract. A bill is the result of a contract. It's clear that there is an implied contract between restaurants and their patrons, hence why they can drop a bill in your lap at the end of the meal even though they may not post prices in their menus or place notices around the establishment that you'll need to pay for your food once the meal is done. But suggesting that the implied contract extends into work-for-hire concepts seems a bit far-fetched to me.
Which isn't to suggest that this law m
Re: (Score:3)
I think it *is* a work for hire. T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever Germany sees an opportunity for a new rule and a big fine for something, that opportunity will be taken.
Re: (Score:2)
What if a competing chef sees the photo and duplicates the dish? Don't you think the chef should have protection for his IP?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what incentive will chefs have to put food on plates, if the government takes away their God-granted monopoly, so that other chefs will then be able to do the same thing? Getting paid for the meal by the diners?! Pfffft!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about Germany specifically but in other places a recipe can't be protected, other than keeping it secret (like Coca Cola). In that case anyone can buy it, taste it, and attempt to replicate it.
That's different to the specific wording of a recipe in a book - that's covered by copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And obviously chefs need to have their food creations copyrighted for 95 years otherwise they'll have no incentive to cook more food!
Next up: Does moving the food around (such as when you eat the food) create a derivative work? If so, eating the food is a violation of the chef's copyright and you should just stare at the food until the waiter brings it back to the kitchen.
Move it around first .... simple! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Move it around first .... simple! (Score:5, Funny)
a derrivative work
I had a later stage of the process in mind, but sure, that works too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to be a juror for that copyright trial
Re: Move it around first .... simple! (Score:5, Informative)
We do not have jurors in Germany. At least not in the way as in the US. A judge deterimes the outcome.
Re: Move it around first .... simple! (Score:5, Informative)
.But we do have lay judges (Schöffen)
For our non-German friends: Instead of judge and jury we have a panel of judges, some of whom (sometimes the whole panel with one exception) may not be studied lawyers but citizen 'drafted' to judge duty for a year or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...which requires permission from the original artist.
One more thing the lawyers already took care of.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just ignore positioning details though. Would you say a copyright for a written work only includes just the order of letters without regard to spacing and punctuation? For for a musical work just the sequence of notes and not duration of notes, pauses, and timbre?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh.. are you suggesting that your kitchen has lax documentation for its ingredient rights licensing? Shhh! Good thing you posted as AC, or else the Business Food Alliance would know whom to audit next.
Why do some people want to prevent photography (Score:5, Insightful)
A way to compete: Post a sign, "Photos Allowed." (Score:4, Funny)
If I owned a restaurant in Germany, I would post a sign, "Photos Allowed."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give some specific numbers? I have paid taxes in Germany and I really doubt you are right. We should count:
- net pay compared to total employer gross cost for employee (Germany, like many other countries, define gross salary as some random number and then require employer to pay taxes on top of it, so they are invisible to employee); this includes not only income tax, but pension tax, church tax, let's help poor east Germans tax, medical tax, accidents tax, job protection tax, sick pay tax, maternit
Re: (Score:3)
I do not live in Germany currently, used to live there.
Regarding difference between tax and insurance - as long as it is mandatory, enforced by government and percentage your income, it is a tax in my book, regardless of how government might want to call it. If it would be medical 'insurance' then it would be a lump sum depending on what service you are getting, not percentage of your salary.
As for the rest, please see here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Please remember I'm talking about salary taxes as se
Re: (Score:2)
Our cars have about twice the mileage, so that's okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon we will only be able to take photographs of people in the nude in a wilderness
As long as you don't get sued by their hairstylist for taking pictures that show their hairstyle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a photo with the lens cap on, you're violating the copyright of the camera designer.
Blackboard makers would then claim prior art
Re: (Score:2)
This won't happen because unenforceable and ridiculous laws naturally fall into disrepute, and either become ignored or removed. As long as photograph and video technology continues on its path of being common place, recording-by-default, undetectable and unintrusive, these laws have no chance.
You can't stop someone photography/videoing/recording when you can't tell if they're doing it, and everyone is doing it all the time anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't mix taking pictures with distributing them.
I'm pretty sure the German case was about distributing pictures, not taking them.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of taking them if not to share them?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To capture their soul and keep it imprisoned on the photograph.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the following: Mugger beats the crap out of someone and robs them, later during his trial pictures of the victim are presented as evidence. Mugger then sues the police department and his victim for violation of his copyright to the art applied to the victims face.
... I would suggest that the police arrange a happening [wikipedia.org] in the cells for the mugger afterwards, and keep full video and audio rights
good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything exposing the ridiculousness of copyright is welcome.
As a kid, I thought "that's my idea!" was childish playground talk. As a student, I learned that publishing and sharing was key to advancing science and culture. In the commercial world, I felt I was back in the playground.
Still, the new rule here will be that you know a restaurant is bad when nobody is allowed to photo the food.
Re:good. (Score:5, Informative)
Anything exposing the ridiculousness of copyright is welcome.
I agree with you in principle, but in practice, the absurdities only seem to be accumulating, not going away.
Enough is enough (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, everyone is fed up with the constant flood of instagrams and faceblogfucks of the burritos or squirrels you had for lunch today. German ingenuity just figured out the way to cull the flood. Copyright for the common cause !
Food for lawyers (Score:2)
So what happens when one chef happens to arrange the vegies the same way as another? Or if, when prosecuted for photography, we can find prior art?
Or, heaven forbid, someone else cooks something that *tastes* the same.
These new laws will definitely inspire culinary innovation. You can expect to see a large investment in producing culinary IP as a result!
Re: (Score:2)
How does this apply to restaurant reviewers who would like to compare, say, one chef's idea of vegetables with that of another chef.
"I'm a food blogger, this photograph is fair use blah blah blah review, criticism, etc"
Officer, why am I being arrested? (Score:3)
A: Officer, why am I being arrested? ...
O: For crapping in the street.
A: But I didn't!
O: I have a picture of it right here.
A: Sorry, but that's a piece of performance art, and you are in violation of my copyright; delete the picture now!
O: OK.
Probably not the way things would go, even in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm asserting copyright on my car's image (due to my tasteful decoration with bumper stickers and "My Family" stick-figures).
Next time I pass a speed camera, the police department will be counter-sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may also be considered derived work and in violation of the last meal Chef's copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
No, in Germany they take it to the next level:
1. Film naked people shitting on other naked people
I though that was the US military [wikipedia.org]
Open source food (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I've sometimes thought of using that analogy in reverse, to advocate open source software: using closed source is like eating food with unknown ingredients. This might not work for the average joe eating at McD, but there are plenty of food-conscious hipsters around who might get it.
OT: I feel a bit paranoid about your sig... is it my ISP inserting ads there?
Simplification (Score:2)
That statements simplifies the legal situation. The example was concerning high-level restaurants where the food presentation might reach a level of art that could be protected. You won't get hammered for taking a shot of your burger at McDonalds ;-).
Even with high-level restaurants, while there may be a policy which asks you not to take photos, no lawsuit has been initiated yet. So this is a very theoretical discussion.
And all of this has to be tested in court....
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I mentioned the simplification. German law makes judgement about how good a creation is. Since we are Germans, we even have an own word for it: "SchÃpfungshÃhe" (in english; Threshold of originality).
If you don't reach a certain level, no copyright protection.
And what about the napkin arrangement? (Score:2)
And what about the napkin arrangement? Many hours go into studying origami.
Finally someone takes action! The proprietors of Imbiss [wikipedia.org] will be delighted. EUR 3 for a Bratwurst and a mere EUR 99 for the right to take a picture of the grub. Picture of the way the plastic container is presented? Prices start at EUR 250. Power to the chippies [wikipedia.org]!
What's next?? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Architectural works are already copyright restricted in many countries. (I use the word restricted rather than protected consciously as the latter is a lie.)
Even the lighting of them can be photorestricted. Snap the Eiffel tower in the daytime, no problem: Gustav has been dead much longer than Walt. Snap it at night and that's a different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
This is insane! What's next? Being sued by an architect for a photo of a building?
That is already the case. Though if the building is on public display (and buildings often are), then non commercial photos are allowed, but they may restrict licensing rights for post-cards, t-shirts and all the other tourist crap.
Re: (Score:3)
This is insane! What's next? Being sued by an architect for a photo of a building?
Yep. [dailymail.co.uk]
The summary is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
I have read TFA (and no, I am most certainly not new here) and it is full of hypothetical blah blah. Basically, some lawyer thinks that when the food has been artistically arranged, one has to ask the chef first before making photos, or one possibly might receive a cease-and-desist letter if the chef sees the photo and is in the mood for writing one. Never happened so far but maybe possibly might happen some day. Also can happen if the eating place owner generally doesn't allow taking photos.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because dinner is at McDonald's
Americans don't need McDonald's to get fat. And in fact, McDonald's is losing business left and right. Fast food is really suffering in America right now because people aren't eating it as much. No loss there.
Re: (Score:2)
So are shops, being private property does not stop something from being public space.
What, this is idiotic! (Score:5, Insightful)
The food was cooked to order on behalf of the customer. There is an implied transfer of ownership and all rights from the restaurant (or chef) to the customer, hence the customer is allowed to destroy the chef's work without being sued.
If the chef wanted to retain artistic copyright of his work, then he should have got the customer to sign a contract.
Re:What, this is idiotic! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, just because you order a dish, does not mean you are the new owner of its recipe, its presentation etc. You just have the right to eat and enjoy it, that's all. There is no other "transfer of ownership" of trade secrets and design of the dish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And brick-and-mortar bookstores allow you to read books that are on sale. Are you saying it's legal and okay I take photos with smartphone of all the useful pages of a book while I'm in the bookstore? Your "occurring in public" is not a good enough excuse.
A customer or competitor can replicate the recipe more easily if he took the photo than if he did not.
Bottom line: the product is on sale for consumption, but its trade and design secrets are not available for sale unless you pay a hefty fee and license th
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I believe that once you begin talking about imitating manufacturing process, you're
Re: (Score:2)
Now that raises an interesting debate: When you go to the restaurant are you purchasing a service or a product? And does that change if you order from a menu vs being one of the fussy customize everything types?
Right for the wrong reason (Score:2)
You can't take pictures of the food simply because you are in the owners property and must follow their rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal firm drumming up business (Score:3)
After digging a bit (I read German) the basis for this foodscare is related to a "birthday train" lawsuit, in which the court found that the design elements could be copyrighted as a work of art despite its functional elements as a toy train, like a sculpture. Basically it gave "functional art" (angewandten Kunst) more of the same protections as "non-functional art" (zweckfreien Kunst). So while you won't get sued for making a hot dog, copying someone's fancy and unique cake design might land you in trouble.
None of this will have any effect on making food pictures on social media, any more than you'll get in trouble for making a photo of a copyrighted statue. It does open up quite a few cans of worms since anything reasonably unique you create might get a quasi-design patent lasting life+70, so it's a IPR minefield for everything from furniture designers to hair dressers, but the photographers don't have much to worry about. Nobody's actually been sued over food photos and it's unlikely anyone will.
old story (Score:3)
I'll give the chef a picture of my money.
Paying them (Score:3)
Stop smiling for photos (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Extrapolating (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not familiar with German copyright law, but there are precedents in other countries that allow artists to use copyright on art that they've sold to prevent its destruction.
If Germany grants similar rights under copyright law, that would mean that the chef could not only prevent photos from being taken, but could refuse to let the diner eat the food or even move it around on the plate since it's now copyrighted.
Work for Hire (Score:2)
Wouldn't this be a work for hire, since you're paying for it and it's being prepared to order?
Unintended consequences (Score:3)
Die, not Der (Score:2)
However, being haughtily, disdainfully monolinguial is no excuse for messing up the name of the news organization you are linking to:
It is "Die Welt", not "Der Welt." For heaven'
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "in der Welt" makes perfect sense in German, meaning simply "in the world". The feminine definite article "die" becomes "der" when used with the preposition "in" for this meaning.
Of course, we're using "Die Welt" as the name of the publication, and "in" in the English sense, so the parent point still stands.
Every plate is different (Score:2)
That's exactly why it's (c)able (Score:2)
"Cooking is an art"
That's *exactly* why presentation is copyrightable. It's not the science part, but the art and skill used to assemble the individualized work. You can't reproduce a photo of a painting, or a photo of a sculpture, or (in some cases) even a building. Why would you think food is any different?
[note: (c) is out of control, but the arguments on the face of it are valid - even if the underlying premise is bad]
I just sneezed on a pane of glass (Score:2)
wanna claim that as well?
Taking Pictures of People... (Score:2)
Taking pictures of people infringes on the implicit copyright by their parents on that gene sequence which created that phenotype. You need to not just blur out the faces but the entire Chef, all of the German nuts in government, etc. Wouldn't want to upset their parents.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already been determined that individuals cannot copyright or patent genes, only Monsanto is allowed to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So before ordering... (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF. Did you really bring a camera into my restaurant? I'm calling the cops. BTW, how did you make it past security with that thing? The head waiter should have found it when he patted you down. Needless to say, no, you won't be putting this on youtube, because the waiter's uniform and my chef hat are copyrighted. You'll at least have to crop those out. Oh, and my barber says you need to blur out my moustache if you use this conversation in your video, too. (No, your video can't have my restaurant's tables and chairs in it; the supply company was very clear about their IP.) Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, and obviously I don't need to tell you why you can't show the door, because even if the door itself weren't copyrighted, it also happens to have our business-hours sign on it...
Re: (Score:2)
Although not really practical, I go to restaurants to eat food, not admire some bullshit "art" project. If any chef seriously has a problem with me taking a picture of my dinner, that pretty much cinches it that I don't want to eat there.
Then again, for the same reason, I have zero interest in taking pictures of my dinner, never mind posting it online - Seriously, WTF, what sociopathic height of vanity does it take to believe anyone wants to see what I had for dinner?
Re: (Score:2)
I've gone to pizzerias (shout out to DiFara's) and taken pictures of the pie. But - these are my memories. Not yours.
But yeah - unless you truly have something to say I can't see being interested in what anyone else had to eat if I wasn't there. (Exception being when my daughter was at camp and sent me a photo of what she had for dinner.
I
Re: (Score:3)
...when I post a pic of my home-cooked dinner on Faceblog :)
No but a German chef could sue you if he cooked something that looked the same first.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah and that's a real problem.
EVEN HIGHER PROBLEM is that a tv dinner maker could sue unfavorable reviews of it's food if they included picture of said food.
like come on, you bought it and the primary purpose is to not look pretty.
of course, you could always make a derivative work of it ? like, slice into it..
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright so doesn't work like that. You pay for a book, but doing so doesn't let you scan it and post it on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you download pics using BiteTorrent?
Re: (Score:2)
Wai,t you mean a picture of something is not the same as having that thing? That there is an inherent difference between a physical object in this world and an image captured at a particular time and perspective that is interpreted by the viewer? It's starting to sound like photography is an art.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So don't ask a bystander to take a photo of you and your girlfriend in front of the Brandenburg Gate, because you can't post it on facebook when you come home because the bystander owns the copyright.