When “Frozen Oranges” Melt Under the Heat of Copyright Law

In a judgment (Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5 - Chamber 1, 1 October 2025, No. 24/01840) as tasteful as its subject matter, the Paris Court of Appeal reminded us that not every attractive food photograph qualifies as a protected work of authorship.
On the table: a culinary photography agency, a French municipality charmed by the image of a frosted dessert, and a legal question that cuts to the essence of copyright, what makes a photograph truly original?

‍

1. The Facts: A Sweet Tooth for “Frozen Oranges”

The company Sucré Salé, specialized in the production and marketing of culinary photographs via its website ‍, discovered that one of its pictures, the image entitled “Oranges givrées” (“Frozen Oranges”), had been reproduced without authorization on the official website of a French municipality.

Believing this to be an act of copyright infringement, Sucré Salé sent a cease-and-desist letter and later brought the municipality before the Paris Judicial Court.
At first instance, the court rejected the claim, holding that the photograph lacked originality and that no wrongful conduct could be established.

The company appealed, arguing infringement of its copyright and, alternatively, seeking to hold the municipality liable in tort under Articles 1240 and 544 of the French Civil Code.

‍

2. Legal Grounds in Dispute: Originality, Fault, and Property Rights

‍

a. Copyright (Articles L.111-1, L.112-1, and L.112-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code)

Sucré Salé contended that the photograph was original due to specific creative choices by the photographer:

• a rustic and warm composition,
• contrast between the dark modern plate and a grey wooden table,
• bright, sunlit ambiance,
• a slightly overhead angle with a soft background blur.

According to the appellant, these elements revealed a personal creative approach reflecting the photographer’s individuality.
The municipality replied that the image merely reflected technical skill, not artistic expression, and displayed no distinctive creative intent.

‍

b. Tort Liability (Article 1240 of the Civil Code)

In the alternative, Sucré Salé alleged fault-based liability and parasitism, claiming that the municipality unfairly benefitted from a professional’s work to illustrate its website without paying for it.
The municipality argued that the picture had been found on Pinterest, freely accessible and without watermark or author credit, and that the use was non-commercial, in the context of a public-awareness campaign on environmental issues.

‍

c. Property Rights (Article 544 of the Civil Code)

Finally, Sucré Salé claimed that the municipality infringed its property right over the digital file corresponding to the photograph, by using “a good that did not belong to it.”

‍

3. The Court’s Ruling: Creativity Cannot Be Claimed, It Must Be Shown

The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the lower judgment and rejected all of Sucré Salé’s claims.

‍

a. Lack of originality

The judges reaffirmed that under Article L.111-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, copyright protection is not granted for mere technical skill or professional quality, but for the expression of free and creative choices that bear the author’s personal stamp.

In this case:

• the arrangement of the oranges and tableware was commonplace in food photography;
• the lighting and framing techniques were standard professional methods;
• no identifiable aesthetic vision or individual creativity was demonstrated.

The photograph therefore lacked originality and could not qualify as a protected work.

‍

b. No fault or parasitism

The Court also dismissed the tort claim.
The municipality acted without commercial intent, within the framework of a public and educational initiative, and the image was freely available online, with no identification of its source.
In the absence of any intent to profit from Sucré Salé’s investments, no parasitic conduct could be established.

‍

c. No infringement of property rights

Finally, the Court held that a digital file is an immaterial object that cannot be appropriated under ordinary property law.
Since copyright law provides a specific framework for the protection of creative content, the company could not rely on Article 544 of the Civil Code to safeguard a non-protectable image.

‍

4. The Outcome: Full Dismissal and Costs

The Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment in all respects, dismissed Sucré Salé’s claims, and ordered the company to bear the costs of the appeal.
It nonetheless declined to award legal fees to the municipality under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, noting that fairness did not justify such an award.photocuisine.fr

‍

This ruling exemplifies the French courts’ strict approach to originality in photographic works:

Technical mastery, aesthetic quality, or professional execution alone do not suffice to establish copyright protection, what matters is the personal creative touch of the author.

As for images freely accessible online, their unauthorized use will only trigger liability where a commercial or competitive intent can be shown, which was clearly not the case for this public-spirited municipality.