Reproduction of an Artwork on a Champagne Label: Court Confirms Copyright Infringement

Court of Appeal of Douai, 1st Chamber, Section 2, 20 November 2025, Case No. RG 24/00114

In a judgment delivered on 20 November 2025, the Court of Appeal of Douai confirmed that a champagne producer committed copyright infringement by reproducing, without authorization, a monumental artwork on the label and commercial packaging of one of its cuvées. The ruling provides relevant clarifications regarding the strict limits of the “accessory theory” and the conditions under which a tacit assignment of copyright may be recognized.

Because the published version of the decision is anonymized, the name of the champagne house cannot be publicly identified.

Link to the decision of the Court of Appeal of Douai dated 20 November 2025 (Case No. RG 24/00114): [to be inserted].

‍

1. Unauthorized reproduction of the artwork on commercial products amounts to infringement

The artist had created a monumental sculpture in 2015 upon commission from a champagne house. Although the company acquired the physical ownership of the sculpture, it subsequently reproduced the artwork on bottle labels, embossed packaging, and on its website.

The Court recalled that the author holds an exclusive intellectual property right over their work, regardless of the ownership of its physical medium (Articles L.111-1 and L.111-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code). Any reproduction or representation without authorization is unlawful (Article L.122-4). The judges therefore confirmed the finding of copyright infringement.

‍

2. The “accessory theory” was rejected: the artwork was not included fortuitously

The defendant argued that the use of the artwork fell within the exception of “fortuitous inclusion” provided under Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the exception applies only where the inclusion of the work is accidental or unintentional.

In the present case:

• the artwork was reproduced voluntarily and prominently on the label and packaging;
• the artist’s name was expressly indicated, ruling out any fortuitous use;
• the argument that the cuvée name was visually predominant concerns trademark law and has no bearing on copyright law.

The Court concluded that the reproduction was deliberate and autonomous, and therefore did not qualify as accessory.

‍

3. No tacit assignment of copyright: tolerance is not consent

The champagne house also claimed a tacit assignment of rights on the basis that the artist did not object for several years and participated in commercial events organized by the company. The Court rejected this position.

It recalled that:

• tacit assignments may be admitted only exceptionally;
• any assignment must include unequivocal consent regarding the scope, destination, geographical reach, and duration of the rights transferred (Article L.131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code);
• the mere tolerance or silence of the author cannot constitute a transfer of copyright.

As no defined scope of rights had been demonstrated, the Court held that no tacit assignment existed and the exploitation was therefore unlawful.

‍

4. Consequences for damages

The Court upheld the order requiring the champagne house to disclose certified accounting records under penalty of a daily fine, so that damages could be assessed in accordance with Article L.331-1-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code. The Court also confirmed the award of a €30,000 provisional payment, holding that the existence of harm necessarily results from the finding of infringement. The allegation of abusive proceedings was dismissed in the absence of fault.

Conclusion

This ruling is clear, conventional, and rightly to be approved. It reaffirms two fundamental principles of copyright law:

• purchasing the physical medium of an artwork does not grant the right to reproduce or commercially exploit its image, particularly on labels, packaging, or online;
• a tacit assignment can only be admitted under strict conditions and requires explicit evidence of a clearly defined scope of rights, which cannot be inferred from tolerance or silence.

For the champagne sector, the luxury industry, and all brands seeking to build visual identity through artistic collaborations, the message is unequivocal: no commercial use of an artwork should take place without a precise, written, and carefully negotiated copyright agreement.