Source: https://ccdigitallaw.ch/index.php/english/copyright/2-what-work/22-werkkategorien/227-fotos-und-filme
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 13:47:37
Document Index: 625785545

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 2', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 12', '§3', '§9', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13']

2.2.7 Photographs and films :: Competence Center in Digital Law Platform
Pursuant to Art. 2 para. 2 (g) CopA, photographs, films and other visual or audiovisual works can enjoy copyright protection. However, only when they fulfil the conditions specified in Art. 2 para. 1 CopA, if they are also intellectual creations with an individual character and are perceptible to the senses.
In the first place, it is crucial that photographs and films are created by one person who expresses an intention or a thought (intellectual creation) in the process. Thus, photographs or films which are made with a webcam, for example, cannot be protected works. This also raises the question as to whether another author in the same situation would have created an identical or a similar work (an individual character) (cf. BGE 134 III 166, 172). In the process, not only the result is important but also the design medium and the photographer's creative leeway, “For example, through the choice of the depicted object, the section of the picture, and the time when the shutter was released, the use of a particular lens, the use of filters or a particular film, through the setting of focus and exposure as well as through the editing of the negative” (BGE 130 III 168, 173). Thus, according to the Federal Supreme Court, snapshots and press photographs can enjoy copyright protection if they did not arise by pure chance and are not simply a depiction of reality (BGE 130 III 168 and 130 III 714).
Audiovisual and multimedia works usually have copyright protection as they generally fulfil the criteria of individuality due to their structure and complexity. The situation is different when the authorship only depicts reality, as anyone else would do in exactly the same way.
In Spring 2020 the revision of the Swiss Copyright Act (CopA) will come into force and bring a number of changes. We will do our best to update this page as soon as possible.
Joint authorship and derivative works often exist in the case of audiovisual and multimedia works
Often, several people are involved in the creation of audiovisual and multimedia works (director, screen writer, cameraman, film editor, sound engineer, producer, etc.). Unless otherwise contractually agreed between the participants, joint authorship usually exists (Art. 7 CopA). The situation is different for film music. Here it is important to distinguish whether the music used in the film was composed before the production of the film or for the film itself. Joint authorship can only exist in the latter case. In the former case, the composer alone keeps his original sole copyright in the work.
If a pre-existing work such as a novel is used for the filming of an audiovisual or a multimedia work, or an existing film is used to produce a multimedia teaching work, aderivative work (Art. 3 CopA) can exist. This also applies to film music when it involves compositions which have arisen independently of a film, but which are edited for a film.
Right of personality and data protection in the event of photos
Besides the copyright protection which protects the rights of the photographer or the photographs, photographs of people are subject to the right to one's own image as a partial aspect of the protection of legal personality Art. 28 Swiss Civil Code (SCC) and the Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP) (Art. 3 et seq. FADP or Art. 12 FADP or corresponding provisions in the cantonal data protection regulations, e.g. Kanton Basel-Stadt §3 et seq. IDG or. §9 IDG).
As a result of the right to one's own image (Art. 28 SCC), the right of the depicted person to self-determination is protected (i.e. their right to determine how and where their image should be published and distributed). An infringement of the right to one's own image is only considered to exist when the affected persons recognise themselves in the image (subjective recognition) and others can recognise them (objective recognition). Every infringement of the right to one's own image is basically unlawful; the person whose rights are infringed can defend themselves with various claims (claim for an injunction, claim for a declaration of their rights, claim for cessation, claim for remuneration and claim for satisfaction Art. 28a SCC).
However, the law recognises three conditions in which there are no infringements (Art. 28 para. 2 SCC):
when the person depicted explicitly or tacitly consents to the use of their image in a specific case,
when there is an overriding private or public interest, or
when there is a legal justification, i.e. it is laid down in a law that a corresponding use of an image is legal.
Personality rights basically end with the death of the person depicted and are neither transferable nor inheritable, i.e. with the death of the photographed person, their right to their own image is lost. However, the question of whether the right of personality has to be extended beyond death is arising more frequently in connection with the increasing commercialisation and attention paid to famous people, similar to the copyright protection deadlines. Only the right of the relatives of the deceased person to their memory, i.e. memory conservation, has been recognised to date. This includes the protection of the sensibilities of the relatives when they are offended by the publication or distribution of images of the body or also through the distortion of the image of the living person. (cf. Büchler, Die Kommerzialisierung Verstorbener, in AJP, 2003 p. 9 et seq.)
The right to one's own image is extended and specified more precisely by the protection from unlawful processing of personal data pursuant to data protection law. Personal data includes all information which relates to an identified or identifiable person (Art. 3 (a) FADP); this also includes photographs of people. Pursuant to the Federal Act on Data Protection, all processing of personal data (collecting, archiving, using, reworking, notifying, destroying, etc.) which is done against the will of the affected party is illegal and may only take place when there is a justification for doing so. The justifications in federal data protection (Art. 13 FADP) correspond to those under personality protection.
Snapshots and the Federal Supreme Court
The Federal Supreme Court had to judge the copyright character of portrait photographs in two cases. One had to do with a popular snapshot of Bob Marley with windswept dreadlocks that was taken by a Swiss photographer at an open-air concert (BGE 130 III 168). The other case related to a press photograph which depicts the security guard Christoph Meili holding two large books as corpus delicti in front of the camera in connection with what are referred to as dormant assets, as per the instructions of the photographer (BGE 130 III 714). In the case involving Bob Marley, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the photographer had not taken a snapshot but had rather used his creative leeway to press the shutter release at exactly the right time and selected a special section of the picture, thus giving the photography sufficient individuality.
The Federal Supreme Court ruled differently in the case of the photograph of Christoph Meili. Although the photographer has clearly not taken a snapshot in this case but has clearly staged the picture, the Federal Supreme Court disputed that the photograph had the required individuality and thus did not grant it copyright protection. The Federal Supreme Court confirms the previous instance with the following words: “The detail and the viewing angle produced a frontal portrait in a size in which the face of Meili and both tomes shown by him were the focus, and the titles of both tomes could be clearly read in the original photograph. Everyone who wanted to show that Meili had been in possession of the questionable documents would have selected the picture elements. All other photo-technical tools were conventional and corresponded to what a basic camera would have automatically selected. Furthermore, the way in which Meili holds up the two tomes, namely with the title pages front on to the camera, are typical and correspond to the way everyone would arrange them. Finally, the lighting was flash-lighting as would be produced in every basic camera by a built-in light. The picture is only unique due to its subject. This documents a highly unusual case which attracted worldwide attention at that time.” (BGE 130 III 716).
Both decisions of the Federal Supreme Court show how difficult it is for the highest court to evaluate the copyright work character of photographs. Finally, it is important to check the details of each individual case. If you would like to use a photograph, you should assume that it is protected by copyright and tread carefully by preferably gaining consent in the event of doubt, unless the photograph in question is in the public domain. (For further considerations, cf. Hug Gitti, Bob Marley vs Christoph Meili: ein Schnappschuss in sic! 2005 p. 57 et seq.)