United States: French Justice In A California Court: Copyright, Picasso And The "Astreinte"

Last Updated: December 20 2016
Article by Catherine Muyl and Peter A. Sullivan

The peoples of France and the United States tend to view things very differently — Jerry Lewis, berets and processed cheese food, to name just a few. Law sometimes transcends this divide – for example, French and American intellectual property lawyers can communicate based on shared fundamental understandings about copyright, trademarks and patents, even as our cultural differences persist. In other instances, however, a shared understanding of legal concepts by lawyers of different jurisdictions is much more difficult. The Ninth Circuit's recent decision regarding a catalog of the works of Pablo Picasso, De Fontbrune v. Wofsy, is a good illustration of this lack of shared understanding, and particularly how U.S. lawyers and judges can misapprehend the legal traditions of other jurisdictions and thereby impair the legal rights afforded by those traditions when enforcing them in U.S. courts.

The Picasso Catalogue

The case of the Picasso Catalogue starts with Christian Zervos, a Greek-born art historian, critic and collector who spent most of his life in Paris, where he founded the Cahiers d'Art review and a publishing house. Zervos met Pablo Picasso there, starting a life-long friendship. Picasso was eager to produce a catalogue of his work to demonstrate that he was a preeminent artist, and Zervos accomplished his task with assiduous devotion. Zervos' catalogue raisonné comprises about 16,000 copyrighted black and white photographs of Picasso's paintings and drawings. Today, this catalogue is still considered worldwide to be THE Picasso catalogue. The 33 original volumes are rarities that have been sold at auction for up to $200,000 USD. Zervos died in 1970, and in 1979 Yves Sicre de Fontbrune bought the Cahiers d'Art business, which included the copyright to the catalogue.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Alan Wofsy, an antiquarian book dealer from California, published his own Picasso catalogue using a number of the copyrighted Zervos photographs, and offered it for sale at a Paris fair. De Fontbrune sued Wofsy in France and, in 2001, the Paris Court of Appeal held that Wofsy had infringed de Fontbrune's rights. The Paris Court of Appeal awarded de Fontbrune 800,000 Francs ($136,000 USD) in damages and issued an injunction prohibiting him from further use of the photographs. If Wofsy did not obey the injunction, the Court's order required him to pay an astreinte (in English, literally, a "penalty") of 10,000 Francs (about $1,700.00 USD) for each violation.

French Rights in a California Court

Several years later, de Fontbrune noticed that Wofsy had used the photographs again, and initiated a new action to get Wofsy to pay the astreinte set out in the 2001 judgment. He was successful and, in 2012, the Paris District Court awarded him 2,000,000 euros.

This is where the story gets interesting.

De Fontbrune sought payment of the 2 million euro astreinte in the Northern District of California. Wofsy argued that, under California's Uniform Foreign-Court Monetary Judgment Recognition Act (UFMJRA), the astreinte was not a compensatory award for copyright infringement but rather a foreign "fine or other penalty" that could not be enforced in a U.S. court. As the Ninth Circuit later explained, the UFMJRA "reflects an ancient maxim of international law that the courts of no country execute the penal laws of another." The District Court agreed with Wofsy, and concluded that the astreinte functioned as a "fine or other penalty" which it could not enforce.

Since "astreinte" translates directly in English as "penalty," and the UFMJRA precludes enforcement of a "penalty," it is not difficult to see why the District Court ruled as it did. What the District Court misunderstood was that the astreinte rendered in 2001 against Wofsy is typical of the type of compensatory award plaintiffs receive from French courts in intellectual property infringement cases. When French courts find that an IP right has been infringed, they commonly award compensatory damages for past injury and an injunction to prohibit future violations. The injunctions are coupled with an astreinte, which will apply if the defendant does not comply with the injunction. The amount of the astreinte varies: it is often lower than what the plaintiff has requested but significantly higher than the value of the infringing product, since it serves as an incentive for compliance with the injunction.

The Ninth Circuit Applies Java Oil

On September 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Ninth Circuit looked to Java Oil Ltd. v. Sullivan, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), a state appellate court decision that set forth a test for determining applicability of California's version of the UFMJRA. The Java Oil test looks to "a number of factors, including: (1) whether the purpose of the award is to compensate an individual or to 'provide an example' or punish 'an offense against the public;' (2) whether the award is payable to an individual or to the state or one of its organs; (3) whether the judgment arose in the context of a civil action or through the enforcement of penal laws; and (4) whether the award was a 'mandatory fine, sanction, or multiplier.'"

Applying the Java Oil facts, the Ninth Circuit found that, as to the first factor, the French astreinte is similar to civil contempt: its purpose is not to punish a harm against the public but to vindicate de Fontbrune's personal interest in having his copyright respected and to deter further infringement by Wofsy. The other Java Oil factors led to the same conclusion: the astreinte awarded was payable to the plaintiff; the proceedings were before a civil court; and the award was not a mandatory fine in the sense that the amount to be paid was freely determined by the French judge.

Yahoo! & Nazi Memorabilia

So far, so good. The Ninth Circuit held that the French judgment of infringement and the astreinte can be enforced in the U.S. However, the Ninth Circuit had one more tricky task, which was to explain why its decision in this case was the opposite of its 2005 opinion in Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'Antisémitisme.

In the Yahoo! case, the advocacy group LICRA used a French criminal law, which forbid the public display of Nazi memorabilia, to convince the Paris District Court to order Yahoo! to block French users' access to those items. The Paris District Court's order was issued along with an astreinte in the event of non-compliance. The Ninth Circuit opinion in that case — which focuses mostly on procedural issues and the First Amendment — also stated in dicta that it was "exceedingly unlikely" that the astreinte, which the Ninth Circuit observed appeared to be penal in nature, would be enforceable under the UFMJRA.

The Ninth Circuit's attempt to harmonize its decision in De Fontbrune with its prior dictum in Yahoo! is problematic because it glosses over a number of errors in the Yahoo! opinion.

First, the Yahoo! opinion relied too heavily on the literal definition of astreinte ("penalty"), thus elevating form over substance. The Ninth Circuit in De Fontbrune seemed to acknowledge the incongruity of, on the one hand endorsing Yahoo!'s translation-based analysis, and on the other engaging in a contextual analysis, by noting that "translation alone is insufficient to capture the 'essential character and effect' of a foreign judgment."

Second, the Ninth Circuit in De Fontbrune distinguished Yahoo! on the grounds that it concerned a violation of the French Criminal Code, as opposed to a civil copyright case. This is technically accurate but, under French law, all criminal offenses are also civil torts and can serve as the basis for an action before a civil court. In theory, copyright infringement is also a criminal offense that can be tried before French criminal courts, but in practice such actions are rare. Criminal proceedings are generally limited to circumstances where a plaintiff seeks to "provide an example" and chill potential future infringers (e.g., in the case of certain luxury goods). A more compelling distinction between De Fontbrune and Yahoo! that the Ninth Circuit noted is that De Fontbrune concerns an individual property right while Yahoo! concerns a vindication of the public interest in not having Nazi memorabilia disseminated to the public.

Finally, the Yahoo! opinion stated that the "astreinte was payable to the government and not a private individual or group." This was an error as well. The astreinte was requested by LICRA and would have been payable to LICRA, not to the government.

The Ninth Circuit attempted to reconcile De Fontbrune and Yahoo! by stating that there could not be a "blanket determination that the device ("astreinte") is always punitive or compensatory. Rather, we must consider a particular astreinte in the context in which it was awarded." To U.S. lawyers, this makes sense in concept, but the Ninth Circuit's inconsistent analysis should give attorneys pause before handicapping the likelihood of success of a future attempt to enforce an astreinte in the U.S. As for French lawyers, it is difficult to see any difference in nature between the astreinte that was ordered in the Yahoo! case and the one which was ordered in De Fontbrune. Adding to this uncertainty with respect to the issue here is that enforcing money judgments typically is a creature of state law, and application from state to state is far from uniform. There are two different uniform acts for money judgment recognition (one framework created in 1962 and the other in 2005), and each uniform act has been adopted in a third of the states, with the remaining states following common law.

The Ninth Circuit's handling of the French legal device of astreinte illustrates the divide that exists in the preconceptions of U.S. and Continental European attorneys. Judges all over the world feel uncomfortable when they have to deal with questions of foreign law due to their unfamiliarity with the substance and nuance of the legal systems of other countries. This is a case in point, demonstrating that there will always be an additional uncertainty in "legal translation" when a court attempts to account for the law of a foreign jurisdiction.

To view Foley Hoag's Trademark and Copyright Law Blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
18 Sep 2018, Webinar, Boston, United States

What does the generalist in-house counsel need to know about patents and patent litigation? Protecting, exploiting, and enforcing new ideas and inventions are key considerations for any company.

12 Oct 2018, Other, Boston, United States

The New England Electricity Restructuring Roundtable has been meeting bimonthly since 1995 to discuss current topics related to important changes in the electric power industry in Massachusetts and throughout New England.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions