Photographing Food Can Be Considered Copyright Infringement In Germany (And, Why I Agree)
Aug 17, 2015
Tiffany Mueller
Tiffany Mueller is a photographer and content strategist based in Hawi, Hawaii. Her work has been shared by top publications like The New York Times, Adobe, and others.
Share:
Earlier this year, we talked about how many restaurants are embracing social media as a means of free advertising. Some American restaurants even changed their menus, ingredients, and plating to cater to those Instagram loving, self proclaimed “foodies”. In Germany, however, it seems as though some chefs are a lot less keen on the idea of their edible creations being photographed and tossed around on the internet for all to see.
According to a report on Die Welt, many chefs were claiming copyright infringement violations after seeing their food pop up on social media. TechDirt reports a law was passed in November 2013, which states:
In individual cases, shared pictures may be illegal. At worst, a copyright warning notice might come fluttering to the social media user. For carefully-arranged food in a famous restaurant, the cook is regarded as the creator of a work. Before it can be made public on Facebook & Co., permission must first be asked of the master chef.
The law is in favor of chefs, saying food photographers must first have permission from the master chef before they can be posted online. The ruling has some internet commentators in a fury, however. But, let’s be real, what doesn’t poke the bear these days. I have to say, though, I also side with the chefs here.
There certainly is an art to food presentation, and without a doubt, these chefs have put a great amount of detail and thought into the way they plate their food. (Just ask any food stylist/photographer). To me, the ruling is not unlike the way we regard photographing things such as paintings, architecture, and even other photographs for profit–you do not do it.
From an artist’s standpoint, I can also understand the desire to want to protect one’s creation. That is, having spent however much time carefully calculating precisely how their food will be arranged on a plate making sure it looks oh-so-perfect and mouthwatering, one cell phone snapshot and crappy Instagram filter later and your once wonderful creation now looks like a half-eaten pile of leftovers. And how’s that look for advertising?
I think it should also go without saying the only chefs who will be enforcing the ruling are those from very well known, starred restaurants whose waiting list is probably already a year long–not the kind of places that necessarily need Instagram to show the world how great their food is.
[ via TechDirt | Lead Image by StateOfIsrael ]
Tiffany Mueller
Tiffany Mueller is a photographer and content strategist based in Hawi, Hawaii. Her work has been shared by top publications like The New York Times, Adobe, and others.
Related Posts
Caesars Palace Bankruptcy Puts $5M Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Rod Stewart On Hold
A Sheer Coincidence Spurs An Incredible Case Of Copyright Infringement On Facebook
Candidate for Prime Minister Sued Due to Alleged Copyright Infringement
Photographer sues Trump Organization for copyright infringement
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
16 responses to “Photographing Food Can Be Considered Copyright Infringement In Germany (And, Why I Agree)”
it has no sense – photographer can change the image of that dish by adjusting light, lens, angle etc – it can be totally different dish
I would have to call “bullshit” on this. Pretty sure you’re purchasing the exclusive rights to the food as you will be “consuming” said food and thus rendering their claim moot. That is unless they want the food back in about 2 or 3 hrs. Also per fair use all one would have to do is alter the food ever so slightly then its a detractive work and copyright is out the door. This idea that food produced for the sole purpose of consumption is copyrightable is absurd. It is entirely different than food that IS styled specifically for producing an image for a magazine or other publication which then does fall under the copyright laws… Sorry but Germany and its chefs are full of it!
I find it ridiculous to photograph every dish, but to call it art, and protect it by copyright. Where will it end? It’s food, its function is to be eaten and that is not replicated by photographing it. If you post a photo, or music, or a movie you you make it available for others in its function (to be seen, listened or both). If I convert a digital photo into music and put it on the net, nobody will complain because the original was a picture and its function as a picture is not replicated. For the same reason I don’t understand how can a photograph of a statue, or building copyright infringement.
It is NOT a copy.
Copyright is
the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work. Plating food in a starred restaurant is an artistic work. Ergo sum, copyrightable and publishing photographs of it without permission is infringement.
i allways thought that is a restrain of freedom… if a work of art is completed and ready to show to the public, i find that it’s public image is free of restrains…
The chef must have a really great stove!
What utter rubbish, and yet more proof of our world being littered by nanny states and pretentious egotistical self promoting idiots.
The food on the plate is only part of the nutritional process for which the customer pays. At what point does the ‘Master Chef’ stop laying claim to the food as a work of art? After the first cut with a knife? After the first chew? When it has finally passed through the alimentary canal and concluded the purpose for which it was purchased?
i think the right question to ask is: “Why are chefs so upset for seeing photos taken of their food?”
They don’t want other restaurants copying their style. Some may also see their presentations as “an experience” and don’t want the experience spoiled by having it revealed ahead of time.
as for other restaurants, it’s the law of competition. there’s no escaping of that, people will allways take pictures, if the restaurant owners deny that liberty, people will not come to the restaurant. The experience is best sold by word of mouth, not by pictures, and actually experiencing it, each person as different personal feelings experiencing it. It’s like taking a bath on the beach, if people told you or show you pictures, will you be sold out without really experiencing the feeling of taking a bath in the ocean.
and I always thought photographers were the whiniest copyright boosters ;-)
As far I’m no fan of the need of taking pictures of everything that comes around in your life (or, in this case, down in your stomach), I completely disagree with this one. As an architect, should I call out for copyright infringement every time someone takes a picture of something I build? Or even worse, if my building is just a background for their photos?… it’s ridiculous, and we’re really going off the rails… there’s infringement only if someone takes credit for what I did and try to use it for himself… otherwise it has to be taken as a form of pure appreciation.
No, no, no! The food itself is not being “copied” or “duplicated”. Rather, what these twits don’t understand, is that photographing food would come under the auspices of a DERIVATIVE WORK.
In the US: “A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.”
A great example is Andy Warhol’s famous “Campbell Soup Cans” series of paintings. He didn’t reproduce the soup can… he created a new, derivative work of art from it.
If 100 different photographers each created their own unique photograph of the food in question, you will get 100 different “artistic visions” of that food. That they are each different (and, in some cases, likely dramatically so) demonstrates that they are each DERIVATIVE of the original “art” in question, and thus do not violate any implied copyright.
Which brings up a final point: How would one go about registering their “food art” for copyright protection? I would find it highly unlikely that the food itself would be. Good luck trying to enforce some sort of copyright protection against any photographer creating his own images from it.
“I think it should also go without saying the only chefs who will be enforcing the ruling are those from very well known, starred restaurants”
Really? What gives you that idea? Dose the law explicitly state that it only applies to starred restaurants? Starred by whom? These laws are always misused. What’s to stop someone who posts a photo of their hamburger getting slapped with a lawsuit from the “artist” who created it? It will happen. Look at the lengths restaurant owners go to to get Yelp reviews taken down. You would be hard pressed to find a profession with a higher percentage of unbalanced egomaniacs than chefs.
I think that is stupid. The end of that creation we all know where is going to end up, toilet. I wonder if they would consider copyright infringement if I take a photo of the shit (forgive me) after I eat that meal. I would much rather see a photo of my creation all over the internet than thinking about the final destination of the same creation.
I think that a lot of people who write articles are confused as to what people actually care about. Everything has to come in with an OP piece. I’m interested in why it might be copyright infringement, but i could not possibly give a shit less as to why the writer may or may not agree.
:)