The Paris Judicial Court (TJ Paris, 5 novembre 2025) recently issued a noteworthy decision concerning the use of two dresses loaned for a highly visible music video. The creator of the garments argued that their exploitation, without any mention of her name, infringed her rights. What may appear at first glance as a light-hearted dispute (two glittering dresses, a pop artist, and a clip viewed nearly fourteen million times) in fact raises three substantive legal issues: originality under copyright law, extra-contractual liability arising from a contractual breach affecting a third party, and the conditions under which parasitic behaviour may be characterised.
The claimant asserted an infringement of her copyright, arguing that the dresses “Bright Silver DC” and “Golden Lady DC” constituted protectable works of authorship. The Court recalls, however, that copyright protection arises only where a creation is original, that is, where it results from free and creative choices that reflect the author’s personality.
The claimant’s submissions were confined to a technical description of the dresses: fabrics, tulle, sequins, pearls, embellishments, colours, and general aesthetic effects. Such elements are commonplace in fashion design and, without further explanation, do not reveal creative choices that would bear the imprint of the author’s individuality. The sketches produced were neither dated nor clearly linked to the final dresses, and the defendants provided evidence of several earlier garments (from 2017 to 2019) that displayed significant similarities.
The Court therefore considered that the dresses formed part of the common aesthetic stock of contemporary fashion and that the claimant had not established the personal expression required for copyright protection. The claims based on copyright infringement were consequently dismissed (Articles L.111-1 and L.112-2 IPC; Article 16 CCP).
The failure of the copyright claim did not resolve the case. The claimant also relied on the breach of a contract concluded between the stylist and the company Need Monet, despite not being a party to that agreement. The Court reiterates that a third party may claim damages for the breach of a contract when that breach causes them direct harm, without the need to demonstrate any fault separate from the contractual non-performance.
The loan agreement of 27 July 2021 imposed two essential obligations on the stylist:
It was firmly established that the credit “D. Créations” did not appear in the music video, nor in the artist’s initial Instagram posts. The breach was further corroborated by a written reminder sent by Need Monet to the stylist. In addition, the dresses appeared in a later television advertisement broadcast on W9, a use entirely outside the contractual scope.
The Court held that these breaches had caused the creator a loss of opportunity to secure commercial partnerships or visibility benefits, given the vast audience the content received. The economic loss was assessed at €1,500, to which the Court added €1,500 for moral damage resulting from the lack of recognition of her creative work.
The stylist was thus ordered to pay €3,000 in damages, plus €5,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other defendants, the artist and the production companies, were dismissed from the proceedings, as no mandate, contractual obligation or wrongful conduct could be imputed to them (Articles 1199, 1200, 1240, 1875 ff., 1887, 1984, 1991 and 1998 Civil Code; Ass. Plén., 13 January 2020).
The claimant further alleged that the defendants had sought to benefit from the visual and promotional value of her dresses without remuneration, amounting to parasitic behaviour. The Court reiterates that parasitism requires a deliberate intention to ride on the coat-tails of another economic actor in order to misappropriate the value of their investment.
However, the production companies had obtained the dresses through the stylist in a regular contractual framework. The mere absence of credit, although constituting a breach by the stylist, did not demonstrate any intention on the part of the other defendants to appropriate the economic value of the creations. The evidence did not reveal any deliberate strategy to take advantage of the creator’s work. The claims based on parasitism were therefore dismissed (Article 1240 Civil Code; Cass. Com., 3 July 2001; 5 March 2025).
Conclusion
This case offers three important lessons:
The decision thus highlights the strict approach of French courts in assessing originality and in allocating liability within creative and collaborative industries. It also underscores the need for stylists and production teams to meticulously comply with contractual credit obligations and usage limitations.
