Edition: What is a collaborative work?

In 2016, a canyoning instructor initiated an ambitious project aimed at topography the dry canyons and dams of the Alpes-Maritimes. He began by creating a website listing unique descents and sharing technical sheets, photographs and detailed descriptions. Between 2016 and 2019, he enriched this work, giving original names to sites not yet listed and using innovative color codes to classify the difficulties of the routes.

It was in this context that he met two other canyoning enthusiasts, with whom he considered collaborating to publish a topo-guide. According to the monitor, although initial talks included a division of roles, no formal contract was established and he reserved the rights to his work. In December 2021, Éditions Amjele published however Canyons secs & Barrings des Alpes-Maritimesa 464-page work containing most of the monitor’s data, without his authorization.

Who is the initiator of the project?

On November 21, 2024, the Judicial Court of Marseille (Judicial Court, Marseille, 1^era chamber, November 21, 2024 – No. 22/07940) rendered an important decision concerning the intellectual property conflict between these three canyoning enthusiasts. This case highlights the complex issues related to the definition of copyright, creative collaborations and the commercial exploitation of a collective work.

Before the court, the instructor claimed to have been the initiator of the project, writing the guidebooks, creating the descriptive and topographical sheets and providing original photographs. He maintained that the other two enthusiasts did not contribute significantly to the creation of the content, and that their participation was limited to the layout and the search for sponsors. He asked the court for an immediate cessation of the distribution and marketing of the disputed work, recognition of his status as the sole principal author, compensation for infringement of his property and moral rights, reimbursement of the sums received by Éditions Amjele and compensation for the counterfeiting of its database.

For their part, the two canyoning enthusiasts claimed the collective nature of the work and Amjele highlighted his role as coordinator, editor and promoter. They argued that the project was born from a collaboration between several stakeholders, including editorial and photographic contributions from other canyoners. They argued that the canyoning instructor had consented to the publication and the inclusion of his name among the authors. Finally, they claimed that the data listed in the work came from the public domain, not constituting an original creation protected by copyright.

Collaborative work or collective work?

In its decision, the court characterized the work as a “collaborative work,” not a “collective work” as the defendants claimed. In accordance with article L.113-3 of the Intellectual Property Code, collaborative works require the unanimous consent of all co-authors for their exploitation. The clear opposition of the canyoning instructor to the publication of the work was therefore sufficient to constitute an infringement.

The court recognized that the canyoning instructor was at the origin of the project and that his contributions constituted the central element of the work including the writing of synopses, the development of technical and topographical sheets, as well as the creation of names originals for the canyons. On the other hand, the publisher’s contributions were mainly limited to layout and technical coordination.

The court therefore jointly condemned the publisher and the two canyoning enthusiasts for infringement of its moral rights, violation of its property rights and counterfeiting of its database. In addition, the immediate cessation of the marketing of the work was ordered, as well as the cancellation of its ISBN registration.

Decisions by mutual agreement

This decision highlights the importance of clarifying roles and contributions in the creation of a multi-authored work. In this case, the lack of a formal contract between the parties resulted in divergent interpretations of their respective rights and responsibilities. Article L.113-3 of the Intellectual Property Code establishes that co-authors must make decisions by mutual agreement. Any unilateral exploitation of a collaborative work constitutes a violation of the rights of other co-authors.

Furthermore, the court also established that the database created by the canyoning instructor benefited from legal protection. Indeed, article L.341-1 of the Intellectual Property Code protects databases for which a substantial investment in time and resources is demonstrated. Reproduction and use of this data without authorization constitutes counterfeiting.

This case illustrates the legal challenges related to collaborative creations and copyright. This judgment highlights the need to clarify rights and obligations from the start of a project. It also provides a valuable reminder of the protections offered by intellectual property law. Finally, this case reminds us of the importance of establishing explicit contracts, especially in associative or friendly initiatives where contributions can become difficult to decide.