Slashdot Mirror
Germany Says Taking Photos Of Food Infringes The Chef's Copyright
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."
Why would they sue in the first place? and miss out on free publicity
Move the items on the plate around a bit, then it becomes your own work or a derrivative work.
--- To save space, would readers please insert their own witty comment -here-
So we can't take a picture in a restaurant if it shows the food because of the chef's copyright. There are already moves to say that you cannot take photographs in a street without the building's architect's permission. What next - photograps of people wearing clothes infringing the designer's permission? Soon we will only be able to take photographs of people in the nude in a wilderness (not farmland, the farmer's neatly trimmed hedgerows, fences, and dry-stone walls hold a copyright too).
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.
I can't wait for all the people that torrent food pictures to get arrested
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 !
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Hahhah! Man, that sounds ridiculous. :D Create a video of you doing that and put it up in YouTube.
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!
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.
Or, how about open source food? How can I know if the restaurant puts malicious components in the food? I can't, unless I can see the original precise recipe and audit it before ordering anything. Also, I must be able to trust the packager (the cook) to not slip anything nasty in.
I pay for the dish, so the dish will be mine. I take a pics of something that I bought....
No copyright ....
Basically, no photos will be allowed in a German restaurant because food might be in the photos.
If I owned a restaurant in Germany, I would post a sign, "Photos Allowed."
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....
And what about the napkin arrangement? Many hours go into studying origami.
Finally someone takes action! The proprietors of Imbiss 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!
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
...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.
This is insane! What's next? Being sued by an architect for a photo of a building? By a webdesigner for a screenshot? By a cars manufacturer for a photo of one of their cars? By parents for a photo of their child? By god for any photo you make?
It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
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..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
germany you are drunk, go to poland
Do I need his permission for making a derived work? Or am I allowed to shit without his permission after eating?
And I can agree with this ruling under the idea that the arrangement of the food was an artistic act, a performance. However, as a required participant of this artistic endeavour, I feel I must ask what my hourly rate as a "model" taking part as the coequal player in this little creative endeavour of "having a meal"? It's somewhere around $100/hr, minimum 2 hours, right? Well, I'm not with Equity,so I guess half that. Then again, the chef isn't a member of Equity either.
And has the Chef got permission for performing a public performance in accordance with the regulations?
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.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
All the fuzz seems to be based on a piece from one attorney Dr. Niklas Haberkamm from Lampmann, Haberkamm & Rosenbaum. And the rest of the article goes on how actually there were just (mostly) failed attempts to suppress taking pictures of food. Also how two bloggers report that this is usually appreciated by restauranteurs.
Summary: move on, nothing to see here.
Should one infer that no German chef actually banned photographs of his food? This would make sense since the visual aesthetic is not a major selling point of a meal: Social 'atmosphere', flavour and texture are.
Taking picture of me clearly violates my parents' copyright copyright for their creation.
So does that mean its now illegal to take photos of me wearing clothes? I've felt it should be illegal to take unauthorized photos of my fashion for the past 30 years. How do i collect my money now?
Just to clarify: The court made it clear that this only applys if
(1) The restaurant makes it clear that taking photografs is not allowed
(2) The Chef must have given a considerable amount of work into the look of the food
Also, this is technically not a fine. It is what you pay to settle without seeing a court. (Around 600-1000€)
Surely if I pay the Chef to produce the food then it's a work for hire, and copyright passes to me, no?
Taking a photo of something is not copying, unless the thing is an image itself.
There could be other laws (reputation protection is a thing where I live for instance), but not copyright.
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.
You can't take pictures of the food simply because you are in the owners property and must follow their rules.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There is this old story about this guy who paid for the smell of kebab with sound of coins.
I'll give the chef a picture of my money.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
I just made a photo on a Berlin street when a homeless approached me and said that the rights of the dried piss on the pavement belonged to him, so I had to pay him.
also infringes the copyright of my wallet. Problem solved.
Extending this logically - if someone takes a photograph of you smiling, your dentist can sue you for copyright infringement if you have any fillings that are visible in the picture. Well done, Germany. Only the English would have no fear.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
Wouldn't this be a work for hire, since you're paying for it and it's being prepared to order?
So no photo's of sour crout? Win Win as far as I'm concerned
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Then taking a picture of ANYTHING violates God's copy write? Right?
So if the meal is IP owned by the chef, and not transferred to me when I purchase it, then I suppose the chef has to take it back when I'm done with it....
Hey, can I still get sued if I photograph the dump I take afterwards?
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's sake, when you click on the link, the correct name is right there on the top of the page in 48-pt font. How do you screw that up?
In German, "der" and "die" are both articles that translate to the English "the," but they have different genders and should not be conflated. ("der" and "die" have more expanded meanings and uses than just "the", but we'll skip that for now.) It would be similar to an American referring to Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Chuck Norris, or Hulk Hogan as "she".
Riiiight. You go do that.
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?
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...
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This application of copyright law is properly ridiculous and wouldn't stand in a court with a sensible judge.
A definition of the word "copy" yields (New Oxford American Dictionary):
1 a thing made to be similar or identical to another
2 a single specimen of a particular book, record, or other publication or issue
3 matter to be printed
Therefore, in that context, the first definition applies. A copy of something, by definition, implies that one should be able to use it in the same ways as the original (being similar or identical).
In the case of a dish, taking a picture cannot hence be considered a copy since I can eat the original, but not the picture (even less so when it's digital). What definition of similar can actually lead to consider that a picture (even more a digital one) is even remotely "similar" to plate with food in it no matter how beautifully arranged?
Likewise, merely taking a picture of a building won't provide me with a roof, and how can it be a copy?
This is somehow illustrated by Magritte's 1948 painting of a (smoking) pipe: "ceci n'est pas une pipe"
http://tinyurl.com/owclu9e
To conclude, it seems that everything revolving around copyright nowadays has become lightyears more surrealistic than one of the leading surrealist painters of the twentieth century.
In general I agree with you. But I often take pictures of the Thanksgiving and Christmas table before we all cut into everything. It's a memory of the occasion.
:-)
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 see now that this list of exceptions is growing.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
This makes no sense. If a chef can make every plate look identical and weight exactly the same based on precise quality control specifications, then they can claim copyright by filing a picture of their food and technical specs to obtain a legal copyright. It's just stupid otherwise. Cooking is an art, not a science. A "pinch" is not a technically precise measurement.
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"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]
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Can you eat a picture of food? I'm not understanding.
See, if I make a copy of a sound file or a movie, I can give it to someone and they can listen to it or watch it. That's what media is for: listening or watching.
Isn't food for eating? Is there a large contingent of anorexic foodies who like to buy pretty food, then just look at it?
Apparently, in Germany, if I take a picture of my BMW and post it, BMW can sue me for copyright infringement... although you might believe the i8 is a work of art, I think you're supposed to drive it.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
wanna claim that as well?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
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, maternity tak, insolvency tax (these are all taxes, no things you 'buy' from your salary)
- then take goods taxes in account (VAT, sales tax, alcohol tax, gasoline tax etc) to find out what percent of the money reaches seller of goods
Not sure about exact net pay - but I think it ends up being around 50% of employer cost after you take everything into account (I'm talking about IT-level salaries, not McDonalds pay, single person, no children). So, from 5000 EUR spent by employer, you end up with 2500 EUR cash.
Then you got to the shop and you pay 19% VAT on everything. This ends up being 16% tax if you count it right way. So, from your 2500 EUR spent in shops, 400 ends up being immediately taxed. Rest is more complicated, we can assume it is already purchasing power.
So, it is roughly 2100 EUR out of 5000 EUR spent by employer. This comes to around 58% effective tax for private people, earning reasonable (but not extravagant) salaries. It will be probably in range of 55% for average salary.
Can you now do similar computation for your 'free' country?
Our cars have about twice the mileage, so that's okay.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
This is obviously a work for hire. I am paying for food to eat, it is mine. The food is not licensed to me for the period of my consumption. All rights to the food on my plate belong to myself and my digestive tract.
Fair use is a concept in American law. That doesn't make it automatically accepted in Germany.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Do we have to ask permission to make a shitty derivative work of the food?
No, only to take photos of said derivative work, which could really cramp some people's lifestyles...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
The occasion for this article was *not* an actual court case. Rather, in the silly season another publication (Finanztest) had re-heated a topic that had been widely discussed before the summer. A pensioner who could not chew had photographed his pureed meals, and someone else had published the photos on a Facebook page whose name translates as "Jürgen takes photos of his meals". Attempts of the nursing home to stifle this obviously backfired. (The pensioner didn't feel treated badly anyway. He just wanted to show other people what it is like when you can only eat pureed food for the rest of your life.)
To make the semblance of a story out of this, Finanztest asked a lawyer whether there is actually any legal hold against people taking photos of the food they are served. And the lawyer said what lawyers everywhere would have said: That yes, theoretically, a very careful composition in a high-class restaurant might be considered a work of art, and thus subject to copyright. However, given that a German court recently decided that a certain porn video did not have copyright protection because someone had merely pointed a camera at a couple having intercourse, with no apparent art, acting or composition involved whatsoever, there seems to be no chance that anyone will ever convince a German judge that some typical fast food is subject to copyright.
As the silly season wasn't quite over yet, Die Welt took up this stupid topic and added another possible reason why taking photos of food might be illegal in some cases. It appears that several years ago(!) an innkeeper in Berlin had posted the following notice (translated from German): "Please do not instagram the food here in this restaurant. (And not this notice, either.)" This was promptly tweeted; possibly as a guerrilla advertising campaign. Such a notice would probably be considered binding by a German court as it does not seem to go beyond reasonable exercise of the innkeeper's property rights. But of course this has never been tested, either, because Germans don't go to court over photos of food in restaurants any more than people elsewhere.
That is called digestion and elimination and it is assumed that this will take place.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Well, if you indeed live in germany you should get some facts straight:
- income tax, right ... which is taxed later
- pension tax, not a tax, it is savings for your pension
- church tax, quit the church, nothing to pay then
- let's help poor east Germans tax, right
- medical tax, that is not a tax but an insurance
- accidents tax, that is not a tax but an insurance
- job protection tax, does not exist
- sick pay tax, does not exist
- maternity take (tax), does not exist
- insolvency tax, does not exist
No idea where/why you invented those taxes ... so three of your claims where right ... wow.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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/...
Please remember I'm talking about salary taxes as seen from the side of employer. Not showing them on employee payroll does not mean they do not exist. Otherwise you can just look at net salary and pretend taxes do not exist.
You are right about is possibility of getting out of church tax. Same way, in US you can probably move to state without a VAT/sales tax/whatever. I was comparing worst case scenario (this is why I took example of Lohnsteurklasse I instead of for example unemployed single mother of three).
Insurrances are not taxes, you can turn that however you want.
For a medical insurance you ... and the rest of the public, perhaps that is the reason why you want to call it a tax? ... you get your medical bills payed, Actually in most cases people have not to take care about hat as the medical services automatically bills your insurance. Hence the name.
If you want a "lump sum depending on what service you are getting" medical insurance you are free to join such a one if your earnings are above roughly 3500 Euro/month or if you are self employed or if you simply get an "additional" insurance.
Same for "pension insurance" and "unemployment insurance".
The idea that an insurance only can be voluntary and not be mandatory, otherwise it would be a tax, is completely retarded. Look at your car insurance.
Perhaps look at scandinavian countries: there they don't have a medical insurance but truly pay it with taxes.
Please: stop copying your retarded american how the world "should work views" on countries that clearly show the world works different.
It makes completely sense for an european that the lower income classes pay less for health insurance and gain the exact same service. Hence it is a percentage of the wage you pay (capped at roughly 500 Euro, so if you earn really a lot of money it is still only 500 Euro).
Why the fuck do you think (sorry for my wording but attitudes like yours make me angry) should a person only earning 1000 Euro also pay 500 health insurance only to be legible to get a heart transplant?
And why should "welfare" be obliged to pay your bills when you are old just because you don't pay the mandatory pension "tax"? Rofl ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The idea that an insurance only can be voluntary and not be mandatory, otherwise it would be a tax, is completely retarded. Look at your car insurance.
If you would need to pay for car insurance 5% of your salary, regardless of how many cars you have (including none), yes, I would call it a tax.
Anyway, discussion was about how much of your salary is taken by government compared to what your employer has to spend. It really doesn't matter if we call it tax, insurance, mandatory payment, protection racket, or whatever.
And BTW, I'm European as well and I'm not saying that government taking percentage of salary (as oppose to lump sum) for public health service is bad thing. I'm just calling it a tax, because there is no way to opt out and it meets all definition of word tax.
If you think that health insurance etc is not tax, be sure to correct wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
forget food.
do your own clothes or hat or even hairdo. and sue everyone that ever takes apic of your person!
Facebook helping distribute said pic? you just got your retirement!
A tax goes to the government, via the collection office.
An insurance goes to the relevant institutions (and reduces your tax payment as it belongs to "spendings").
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Er.. said it all in the byline.. Only in Germany...
There's a German-language edition of The Onion?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Fine. I can't take a picture of the food that was served to me.
But I can post the result after my digestive system has recast the original thereby creating a derivative work, right? That should make for a nice addition to any restaurant review.
Newspaper is called "Die Welt", OP should fix that in the article.
i'm in trouble now :-)