Sacha Goldberger loves his grandmother very much. He adores her, coaxes her and photographs her, as much as he can, and as much as his health allows. At 101 years old, Frederika Goldberger still has the eye that lights up when her grandson, 52, a former publicist turned photographer, asks her if she wants to pose for him. For her latest set of photos, “Mamika”, named after the character they created together in 2010, smeared gold on her face herself, and played a female Master Yoda for twenty minutes without blinking. .
In the photos staged by her grandson, Mamika is a super-granny, and not just because she’s a WWII survivor: cape in the wind and silver tights, she literally flies. His fans love him without counting, print his photos, make XXL size prints to adorn their walls, in Paris, Moscow or Mexico. And that is the problem. Because these images, exhibited in various festivals and published for the first time in the form of a book, Mamika, great little grandmother (Balland, 2010), have an author whom market rules and copyright law require to consult, quote, and pay – which few do.
“A photo of Mamika was even used, without our authorization, by a brand of sextoys”
“A photo of her was even used, without our authorization, by a brand of sextoys”, regrets, dismayed, Sacha Goldberger. Mamika was laying there making a phone call, a vibrating toy replacing the handset. For the past few months, the artist has been suing his looters for forgery, his moral and economic rights being deliberately violated – and not only when Mamika, who is not his only model, poses.
In March, the Nanterre court ordered a Strasbourg hotel to pay it 61,000 euros in compensation for having misappropriated three images from its series. Super Flemings. In June, a consulting company, which had used four scenes to illustrate its website, was condemned for the same amount. One day, his lawyer pleads his case against a stroller business, another against an Airbnb rental or a communication agency. Wednesday, November 18, it was against a Toulon restaurant, which used images of the photographer to illustrate its accounts on social networks.
“The imprint of his personality”
To assert his rights, the photographer must provide proof that his works are original. In his pleadings, Vincent Toledano recalls that “The photographer has created costumes, decor, lighting and a real staging resulting from his aesthetic biases and arbitrary choices, which give originality to the image bearing the imprint of his personality”, what makes her “Eligible for copyright protection”. Implacable. But since the Internet, and its supply of images just a click away, many seem to have forgotten it. “Everything happens as if the availability of images on social networks entailed the right to use them as one pleases, points out the defender. This is not the case, what professionals should know – in the absence of individuals and dozens of bloggers who must constantly be called to order. “
You have 37.01% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.
–
