Univ., Diss.--Paris, 2003.

La collection demeure un puissant moteur de curiosité en perpétuelle effervescence. Elle relève de la sphère artistique et participe de l’indicible. Elle échappe à la logique et à la rationalité. Elle nous dépasse et ne relève que de l’ordre du sensible. C’est pourquoi en parlant des relations entre l’art et la société, la collection occupe une place singulière. Pourtant, si les études juridiques consacrées aux œuvres d’art sont nombreuses, il en irait autrement pour les collections, alors même qu'elles sont heurtées depuis plusieurs décennies par de nombreux bouleversements économiques et artistiques peu étudiés par le droit. Un tel constat conduit à ramener les collections dans le champ d’une analyse juridique. Celui-ci n’est pas seulement académique et il implique de réelles conséquences pratiques. Comment la collection est-elle appréhendée par le droit ? Quel est son avenir juridique ? Telles sont les interrogations qui vont permettre de remonter aux sources de ce corpus pour mieux envisager son devenir. Pour ce faire, il convient d’appréhender la consistance même de la collection par le prisme de la propriété et ses régimes de protection. Puis, il sera permis d'envisager la gestion et la transmission juridique de ces patrimoines artistiques qui s’enracinent dans le cadre d’une activité culturelle des collectionneurs publics et privés. Dans une approche pluridisciplinaire, l’étude présente de façon à la fois globale et cohérente l’appréhension de la collection par le droit. Il s’agit de contribuer à une compréhension accrue des instruments permettant le fonctionnement de cet ensemble dans la relation qu’il entretient avec le droit, son marché et ses divers protagonistes. En mettant en évidence la contradiction entre la volonté du législateur d’encourager le développement des collections et les restrictions qu’il impose, l’étude participe, à sa mesure, à la connaissance juridique de cet objet, à sa valorisation et à sa conservation sur le territoire afin de déployer une nouvelle « culture de la collection ». C’est ainsi que l’on peut vérifier une nouvelle fois que le droit est un outil d’intelligence de réalité sociale pour la collection et un matériau directement expérimentable par le collectionneur pour aller au-delà du droit. / The collection remains a powerful engine of curiosity in perpetual effervescence. It concerns the artistic sphere and takes part of the inexpressible one. She escapes from logic and rationality. She’s beyond us and raises only about the sensitive one. Therefore, speaking of the relationship between art and society, the collection occupies a singular place. However, if the legal studies devoted to artworks are numerous, it would be different for collections, while at the same time they have been run up against for several decades by many economic and artistic upheavals, little studied by the law. Such a report led to bring back the collections in the field of a legal analysis. It’s not only academic and involves real practical consequences. How is the collection apprehended by the law? Which is its legal future? These are the questions that will help to go back to the sources of these corpus to better consider their destiny. With this intention, it’s advisable to appreciate the consistency of the through the prism of the property and its protection schemes. Then it’ll be possible to consider the management and the legal transmission of such artistic heritage which roots in the context of a cultural activity of public and private art collectors. In a multidisciplinary approach, the study presents so both comprehensive and coherent apprehension of the collection by the law. This is to contribute to an increased understanding of the instruments allowing the operation of this set in its relationship with law, its market and its various protagonists. By highlighting the contradiction between legislator’s desire to encourage the development of collections and the restrictions it imposes, the study involved in its extent, the legal knowledge of this subject, its valorization, and its conservation on the territory in order to deploy a new "collection’s culture". Thus one can verify once again that the law is a tool of intelligence of social reality for the collection and a material directly usable by the art collector to go beyond the law.

This thesis presents the shortcomings of the Fair Use exemption within the Copyright Act through an in depth analysis of the recent Shepard Fairey v. Associated Press surrounding the well-regarded Hope Poster. The thesis critiques the unpredictability of the law, the copyright holder’s growing sense of monopolized ownership over her or his work, the complex facets of art that are overlooked in the court’s legal analysis, and finally, the social justice implications of the Copyright Act. The thesis argues that Fair Use should make room for appropriation art, otherwise successful and progressive artists, such as Shepard Fairey, will be discouraged from creating.

No description available.

Le droit d’exposition des oeuvres graphiques et plastiques est un élément nouveau du droit d’auteur, dégagé par la Cour de cassation en 2002. Il permet à l’auteur d’autoriser ou d’interdire l’exposition publique de ses oeuvres, qu’elles soient de dessin, de peinture, de sculpture, de photographie, d’architecture ou de tout autre oeuvre graphique. Ce droit lui permet aussi d’en contrôler les conditions de présentation et d’en tirer une rémunération. Il est en cela assimilable au droit de représentation, tel qu’il s’exerce pour les oeuvres dramatiques ou musicales. Mais le droit d’exposition ouvre des problématiques nouvelles pour le droit d’auteur. En effet, son objet ne peut être qu’une chose corporelle, qu’il s’agisse de l’exemplaire original de l’oeuvre ou de toute autre copie. Par conséquent, cela oblige à reconsidérer la nature du droit d’auteur, que l’on qualifie usuellement de droit sur « l’immatériel », cette notion étant plus adaptée pour les oeuvres littéraires, dramatiques ou musicales. Cette évolution remet en question le sens même de l’expression « propriété incorporelle », telle qu’elle est employée par le Code de la propriété intellectuelle. Le droit d’exposition interroge donc les fondements du droit d’auteur et bouleverse son contenu et sa portée. La thèse apporte les réponses aux questions qui sont posées par ces problématiques. Ainsi, il sera démontré que l’expression « propriété incorporelle » ne qualifie que la propriété du droit de l’auteur, considéré comme un bien, et non celle de l’oeuvre à proprement parler. En cela, la distinction entre cette propriété et la propriété de l’objet matériel doit être entendue le plus strictement, c’est-à-dire comme une simple distinction des droits. De même, le caractère novateur du droit d’exposition révèle que le droit d’auteur a davantage été conçu pour les oeuvres littéraires, dramatiques et musicales, et non pour les oeuvres graphiques et plastiques. De ce fait, le droit d’exposition concourt également à une harmonisation des prérogatives conférées aux auteurs au titre de la propriété littéraire et artistique / The visual artists display right is a new part of the author’s copyright, introduced by the French supreme court in 2002. It implies, for the author, the right to authorize or prohibit the public exhibition of his works, such as paintings, sculptures, photographs, architectural works or any work of graphic or plastic art. This right also gives the author a control over the conditions of presentation of the work and allows him to exploit it financially. It is similar to the performing right for dramatic and musical works. But the visual artists display right is the cause of new problems about intellectual property. Indeed, the exhibition is based on a physical thing in which the work is embodied. Therefore, we need to examine the nature of copyright, which is considered to have an intangible subject-matter. This concept is more convenient for literary, dramatic and musical works. This development calls the terms “intangible property” into questions, as they are used by the French copyright law. The visual artists display right shakes the very foundations of copyright and upsets its own structure. This thesis is intended to examine theses problems. Thus it appears that the terms “intangible property” refer to the property of the author’s right itself, as a possession, instead of the property of the work. That’s why the distinction between this property and the property of the tangible item should be considered as a distinction between two rights. In addition, the innovative nature of the visual artists display right shows that copyright has more been provided for literary, dramatic and musical works, than for the artistic works. This right also contributes to the harmonization of the literary and artistic property

The development of graffiti into an accepted art form, street art, is a cause of concern for South African property owners. The current position in South African property law regarding the original acquisition of ownership suggests that the creation of street art on movable property belonging to another could result in the transfer of ownership. Ownership of the movable may transfer via accessio to the street artist provided that the artwork changes the nature of the movable. This would occur even if the street artist does not act in good faith because bona fides is not a requirement for the original acquisition of ownership via accessio. This anomaly requires that the South African law on accession in the case of pictura be developed such that good faith be a requirement for the transfer of ownership in this format. With the development and growing popularity of the art form the likelihood of this legal anomaly is becoming a greater possibility. Indeed, the popularity of British street artist, Banksy, has provided numerous examples of contested ownership, albeit within English law. Banksy artworks are collectable and financially valuable. Consequently, not only are they desirable but many of his street artworks are considered to be examples of British cultural heritage and as such may be worthy of protection and preservation. These cases highlight the growing need in South Africa to clearly identify who South African street artworks belong to and, to identify any South African street art that warrants cultural heritage protection. The legislation regarding the protection of South African cultural heritage resources has not yet been extended to any street artworks. Yet there are examples of street art in South Africa that meet the requirements for cultural heritage status or which have the characteristics of cultural heritage resources. The extension of cultural heritage resource status to South African street artworks that are culturally significant could assist in the protection and preservation of these resources. However, the effectiveness of the cultural heritage legislation, in particular the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999, is limited. There are several problematic aspects in this Act. This is of great concern as the issues effect all South Africa’s cultural heritage resources (not just street art which may qualify for such status). However, these issues could be responded to through amendments to the legislation. Significantly, the National Heritage Resources Act seeks to deprive private owners of their property as it seeks to regulate what owners can do with cultural heritage property which they own. However, as it stands there are far too many challengeable issues in this legislation to justifiably deprive this property in terms of s25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. This renders significant portions of the National Heritage Resources Act inoperable. Consequently, the amendment of this legislation is necessary to ensure the purpose of the legislation i.e. to ensure the protection and preservation of the South Africa’s cultural heritage resources through the deprivation of property rights or indeed, if necessary, through the expropriation of property. / College of Law / LL. D.