Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany Says Taking Photos Of Food Infringes The Chef's Copyright

Posted by samzenpus on from the eat-with-your-eyes-not-a-camera dept.

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."

6 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Move it around first .... simple! by SillyBrit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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-
    1. Re:Move it around first .... simple! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      a derrivative work

      I had a later stage of the process in mind, but sure, that works too.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  2. Why do some people want to prevent photography by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  3. good. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Re: subjects in comments are stupid by thesupraman · · 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..

  5. What, this is idiotic! by hattig · · 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.