Case:
Cour d’Appel de Paris D. 1955, 295 Case Marlene Dietrich v. Société France-Dimanche Subsequent Developments
Date:
16 March 1955
Note:
Translated French Cases and Materials under the direction of Professor B. Markesinis and M. le Conseiller Dominique Hascher
Translated by:
Tony Weir
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

The Court:

Marlene Dietrich, the claimant, and Société France-Dimanche, the defendant, both appeal from a judgment of the civil tribunal of the Seine on 30 June 1952 which awarded her damages in the sum of 50,000 francs. She claims that the amount of damages be increased to $50,000 dollars, while the defendant seeks the reversal of the judgment.

Given that its issues of 10, 17 and 23 December 1950 France-Dimanche, published by France Editions et Publications, contained a series of articles entitled “My Life, by Marlene Dietrich”, the first article being headed, in large letters: “My Life, by Marlene Dietrich, chevalier of the Légion d’honneur and daughter of a ranking Prussian officer”, and the introduction to the series stating “This week France-Dimanche starts giving you the unpublished memoirs of Marlene Dietrich … reminiscing to Kurt Reiss about her brilliant career. In this unpublished report our readers will be captivated by anecdotes which cast a new light on Marlene Dietrich”;

Given that the heading of the first article, highlighting the artiste’s German origins, could be considered malicious, that the third article contains unflattering observations about her dress-sense, saying that she looked like a kitchen-maid, and that there are constant allusions to her legs, as if her success were attributable to her legs rather than her talent; Given, above all, that documents before the court show that Marlene Dietrich never gave France-Dimanche any authority whatsoever to publish what they call her memoirs, and that it is futile for the magazine to maintain that it was merely summarising the book by Kurt Reiss, to whom the appellant gave no authorisation or any information on her private life; Given that the articles were presented by France-Dimanche in a way which suggested that the memoirs were dictated by Marlene Dietrich herself, even to the extent of putting certain phrases in inverted commas so as to give the impression that they were actual quotations;

Given that an individual’s reminiscences of his private life form part of his moral capital, and that no one has the right, even in good faith, to publish them without the clear and explicit authorisation of the person whose life is being recounted; Given that while different considerations apply to a person’s public life, for otherwise history could not be written, anecdotes stories and incidents of a person’s private life, especially those of an intimate nature, cannot be published without his assent, and given that these principles apply equally to stars and artistes, who cannot be distinguished on the specious pretext that publicity is what they seek in their desire for fame; Given furthermore that in the case before us not only were Marlene Dietrich’s memories of her life published without her consent, but they were presented in such a manner as deliberately to give the impression that it was she herself who was recounting them;

As to the damage suffered: Given that the material and moral harm suffered by Marlene Dietrich takes two forms, first of all, the violation of the principles enunciated above, and secondly, that her intended project of publishing her own memoirs and reminiscences is now gravely compromised, if not totally frustrated; Given that in consequence there is good reason to increase substantially the damages awarded by the trial judge, and that this court, being apprised of its component elements, evaluates the harm at 1,200,000 francs;

For these reasons DISMISSES the appeal of the Société Journal France-Dimanche, upholds the judgment below in so far as it held the Société Journal France-Dimanche liable in damages to Marlene Dietrich, but amends it as to quantum and orders the Société Journal France-Dimanche to pay Marlene Dietrich the sum of 1,200,000 francs by way of damages.

CA Paris 16 March 1955 : The rules put forward by this judgment do not seem to have been reopened subsequently, a fortiori since the entry into force of article 9 of the Code civil in 1970. In a judgment of the 30 June 1994, the Versailles court of appeal considered that: "Any person, however famous, has an exclusive right to his picture and to the use which is made of it, by virtue of which he can oppose its reproduction and dissemination without his express and special authorisation, subject to the requirements of freedom of information". Although given in connection with an infringement of the right to one's picture, this case law confirms the terms of the judgment of the Paris court of appeal of 1955: the need for a special and express authorisation by the person interested - even if a famous person - and even though he had, in the past, disclosed parts of his private life to the media. A further "indirect" confirmation of the principle according to which it is not possible, even in good faith, to disclose the memoirs of one or more persons without their consent, will be found, illustrated this time by the publication of memoirs shared with third parties or facts relating to the private lives of those persons. Two court decisions (TGI Paris, 10 March 1982 and Paris court of appeal 5 March 1990) have in fact reaffirmed this principle, thus for the Paris court of appeal: "An artist infringes the private life of his ex-spouse by revealing in an autobiographical work facts and episodes concerning the intimacy of the personal private life of the latter (...). Such disclosure, carried out without prior authorisation, cannot be justified by the literary genre of the work written by this artist who had, as did his editor, an obligation to obtain the authorisation of his ex-spouse prior to its publication".

Translation by Raymond Youngs

 

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.