Unauthorized reproduction of excerpts from the TV program Quotidien: neighbouring rights in support of the producer’s claims

TJ Paris, 3^rd ch., 3^rd sect., April 1st, 2026, n° 23/13857, Bangumi

Following legal action initiated by Bangumi, the production company behind the program Quotidien, the Paris Judicial Court was asked to rule on the unauthorized use of several images and video excerpts from the program on a website as well as on the Instagram account of a company whose director had been invited onto the program to present his company and its products.

Bangumi based its claim on copyright infringement, infringement of its neighbouring rights as a videogram producer, and parasitism.

1. Copyright: failure to demonstrate the originality of the program Quotidien

The court rejected this ground on the basis that the evidence produced by the claimant merely described the progression of the program Quotidien, without specifying the characteristics that reflect the personality of its author(s), nor the free and creative choices they allegedly made.

Thus, according to the court, this description was insufficient to qualify the program as original.

This solution is consistent with established case law: copyright protects an original form, not a mere concept or program mechanics. In this context, as regards audiovisual formats, demonstrating originality can be complex in practice.

2. Neighbouring rights of the producer of videograms: the lack of the producer’s authorization constitutes the infringement

To obtain sanctions against the unauthorised use of excerpts from the program Quotidien, the claimant relied on its status as a videogram producer. This status was recognized by the court, as Bangumi demonstrated that it exploited the program under its name.

In defense, it was argued, first, that authorisation had been granted by an employee of the claimant company and, second, that the short quotation exception applied.

However, the Paris Judicial Court dismissed these arguments. First, it held that it was for the defendant to provide proof thereof and to ensure that the employee who had allegedly granted authorisation was duly empowered to do so, which was not the case in this instance. Second, it denied the benefit of the short quotation exception, considering that the excerpts had been used for purely promotional and commercial purposes, with the aim of taking advantage of the media exposure resulting from the director’s appearance on the program.

It should be recalled that the short quotation exception applies only if several cumulative conditions are met: (i) prior disclosure of the quoted work; (ii) the brief nature of the excerpts, both in relation to the original work and to the second work incorporating it; (iii) a critical, polemical, educational, scientific or informational purpose; and (iv) indication of the source (quoted work) and its author.

Logically, the commercial purpose of the quotation excludes the application of the short quotation exception.

3. Parasitism: failure to demonstrate the economic value of the program Quotidien

Lastly, Bangumi based its claim on parasitism, alleging that the defendants had placed themselves in its wake in order to unfairly benefit from the reputation associated with the program Quotidien.

The court dismissed this claim.

After recalling that the facts invoked under parasitism must be distinct from those already sanctioned on the basis of copyright or, in this case, neighbouring rights, the judges rejected the claim as the claimant company had failed to prove the existence of an individualised economic value specific to the program Quotidien.

This reasoning aligns with consistent case law, which requires both the characterisation of intentional fault and a rigorous demonstration of an individualised economic value.