weekly tRansmission n°15 Copy, Copy, CopyRight:
thuRsday 13 apRil 2017 fiRst tRials : mayeR versus fRanCk
contents: Copyright is a form of intellectual property, applicable to certain forms of creative work ii Weekly Cartoon by Théophile: Le Jeu des 7 Erreurs vi First Photographic Copyright Laws in Europe (Rosmini, 1886, French) vii-ix Paris Trial, Mayer versus Franck, 1866, original Pieces 1-6 Photography and the Law, hundred and fifty years later (2016) 7-9 Controverses, Daniel Girardin & Christian Pirker’s Exhibition Catalogue 10 www.plantuReux.fR
Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution. This is usually only for a limited time. The exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use. A major limitation on copyright is that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the underlying ideas themselves. In France in 1863, in United States in 1883, in Italy in 1886, the court set precedent for photography to be legally included as a means of artistic and original expression. The e-bulletin presents articles as well as selections of books, albums, photographs and documents as they have been handed down to the actual owners by their creators and by amateurs from past generations. The physical descriptions, attributions, origins, and printing dates of the books and photographs have been carefully ascertained by collation and through close analysis of comparable works. When items are for sale, the prices are in Euros, and Paypal is accepted.
n°15-2017: Copy Copy CopyRight Previous transmissions can be found at www.plantureux.fr
Weekly Transmission 15
III
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
“[In England, the early court battles tested the validity of the patent process. In July of 1854 James A. Cutting patented three elements of a collodion process called the ambrotype.The patents covered the use of camphor with collodion (No. 11.213), Canada balsam to hermetically seal the image (No. 11.267) and the use of potassium bromide in addition to potassium iodide to make collodion more sensitive to light (No. 11.266). This last patent affected not only the ambrotype process but also the wet plate collodion process. Photographers at the time did not believe that Cutting had originally invented the ambrotype process and instead credited Archer with its invention. As a result, they assaulted his claims and blatantly infringed upon the patents. Many of the photographers who had purchased the right to practice the process legally from Cutting brought litigation against the patent infringers. The most zealous of the patent men was William Tomlinson of New York. He was involved in litigation with many photographers. Most of the cases were settled by the infringer paying a line rather than having to be involved in a lengthy trial. Included in this group were notable photographers Brady, Gurney, and Bogardus. The photographic community eventually joined together to form a committee whose sole purpose was to light the Cutting patents... The case would last until 1865 when Fredrickson finally decided to no longer legally oppose the patents. In the end the patents were not revoked but instead expired. An extension to the patent was applied for, but the patent office denied the application stating that an error had be made in its original issuance. Copyright protection, as opposed to patent rights, was the issue in the case of Sarony vs. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company, which began in April 1883. In this case the photographer Napoleon Sarony was asking the courts to uphold his copyright protection for an image entitled “Oscar Wilde, No. 18. The Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company contended that photographs were not written works and therefore there was no author to claim copyright. Additionally, the defense stated Sarony’s copyright notice, as it appeared on the image. “Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony” was not valid because it did not state his Christian name. Sarony countered the defense by asserting the photograph was a work of art because he had directed the pose, costume, and expression of the subject to produce an original image despite the fact the process was mechanical. Painting had been protected under copyright by the law of 1793. In 1865, because of the case Woods vs. Abbott, Congress extended copyright protection to include photographs. In 1883, the court found in favor of Sarony and set precedent for photography to be legally included as a means of artistic and original expression. The defense appealed the decision a year latter, but it was upheld.
Weekly Transmission 15
IV
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
This case proved that photography could be legally copyrighted and patented and was therefore, both an art and science. Towards the end of the nineteenth century there were many other court cases that would carry through well into the next century — Especially notable were the court battles involving Eastman Kodak Company. In 1889 George Eastman and Henry Reichenbach filed a patent for cellulose film. The patent was not approved at first because of a patent application for a similar invention by Reverend Hannibal Goodwin. Eastman and Reichenbach were eventually granted the patent in December of 1889. The use of this technology by Kodak led to many court cases between Goodwin and Kodak and later Ansco and Kodak. The cases were not finished until 1913 when the court ruled against Kodak.” (Sarah Templeton, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, page 342). In Europe, the first two trials establishing copyright issues in photography both involved the photographer Mayer about copying portraits of famous people: — Cavour and Palmerston in Mayer & Pierson vs Bethbéder et Schwelbé, Paris, 1856-1863 — The Princes of the House of Orléans, sons of former King Louis-Philippe in Mayer vs Franck, Paris, 1862-1866, which original pieces as exposed by the plaintiff are reproduced and described in this transmission.
Weekly Cartoon: Jeu des 7 erreurs by ThĂŠophile Bouchet Galliano / you are invited to play
Weekly Transmission 15
VI
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
débat sur le droit d’auteur en photographie en europe, 1886 "À côté des grands arts souverains, comme la peinture et la sculpture, le goût et le travail ont donné la vie à des sœurs agréables et charmantes qui rappellent à l’aide de la ressemblance, les traits divins des sœurs aînées et les reproduisent par milliers d’exemplaires pour les répandre dans les milieux qui ne peuvent posséder le trésor des œuvres originales. Aussi la lithographie, la xylographie, la photographie, en tant que reproductions des travaux d’autrui, peuvent- elles former un sujet de questions juridiques sous le rapport des droits des auteurs. La photographie a plus spécialement occupé et divisé les esprits, et c’est sur ce point que nous tâcherons de résumer l’état de la jurisprudence en cette fin du XIXéme siècle. Les applications si variées qu’on a données, dès sa naissance, à la photographie ont soulevé avant tout, en Italie comme en France, la question de savoir si elles peuvent être considérées comme œuvres de l’esprit, comme œuvres de l’art, donnant naissance au droit d’auteur. On a dit, d’un côté, que la photographie ne peut pas être assimilée aux beaux-arts ni ses produits être protégés à l’égal des œuvres des artistes, parce que la photographie n’est qu’une série d'opérations mécaniques et manuelles, dans lesquelles il n’y a ni production de l’esprit, ni création de l’intelligence ; que le photographe devrait être assimilé non à l’artiste, mais à l’industriel mettant en œuvre des machines pour en tirer des produits, qui ne tombent pas sous les dispositions de la loi sur les droits des auteurs. Dans la photographie, autant que dans les autres professions, l’habileté et l’intelligence du photographe auront pour résultat de donner des produits plus ou moins parfaits, mais pourtant les figures qui émanent de l’action du soleil et de la chambre obscure ne peuvent pas s'appeler le produit d’un talent artistique. En effet, les tribunaux italiens qui eurent l’occasion de se prononcer, en application de la loi du 25 juin 1865, jugèrent que l’œuvre du photographe était simplement mécanique, sans inspiration d’art ni travail d’esprit. C’est ainsi que se prononcèrent les Cours de Naples (2 août 1867) de Turin (8 février 1868) de Florence (26 novembre 1870). Mais les écrivains se chargèrent de modifier ce principe, à notre avis trop absolu, de la jurisprudence. M. Drago, le premier, dans son commentaire sur la loi italienne, observe qu’il n’est pas question d’établir que les photographies sont ou non des œuvres d’art, mais bien de voir si elles sont ou non des productions, des œuvres de l’esprit (dell’ ingegno). Puis il conclut en disant que “personne n’oserait contester le droit d’auteur à un peintre qui reproduit des objets du règne animal, végétal ou minéral... et que dès lors on ne voit pas de raison pour refuser ce droit au photographe qui, comme le premier, ne fait autre chose que copier la nature, que reproduire des objets, des personnes qui existent”.
Weekly Transmission 15
VII
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
Et en vérité, les perfectionnements graduels apportés aux procédés de Nièpce, de Daguerre et de Talbot nous offrent maintenant des travaux qui sont vraiment considérables tant pour la valeur de l’ouvrage que pour la modicité du prix. L’auteur de ces lignes s’est aussi rangé parmi les opposants à la jurisprudence restrictive de nos tribunaux, pour adopter celle qui prévalait dans les jugements français, soutenus par l’autorité de la Cour de Paris qui, en 1863, condamnait Bethbéder et Schwelbé pour reproduction illicite des photographies-portraits de Cavour et Palmerston, quoique dans les pièces du procès existât un mémoire signé par plusieurs membres de l’Institut et artistes célèbres qui protestaient contre toute assimilation qui pourrait être faite de la photographie à l’art; et en 1866, condamnait le photographe Franck aux dommages-intérêts en faveur du photographe Mayer pour reproduction des portraits de la famille des princes d'Orléans. l’expression large et étendue de la loi italienne qui réserve les, droits d’auteur non seulement aux œuvres de l’art ou du génie, mais à toute œuvre de l’esprit (opere dell’ingegno) aux plus sublimes comme aux plus médiocres, me paraît détruire toute objection. En outre, il n’est pas exact que les productions photographiques soient des ouvrages tout-à-fait mécaniques et matériels, parce qu’elles réclament, aussi bien pour la production directe que pour les retouches, des connaissances artistiques et du goût, ce que nous verrons plus loin. D’un autre côté, dans la relation du ministre Scialoja qui précédait et expliquait la genèse de la loi italienne de 1865, la photographie est énumérée, avec la gravure et le dessin, comme moyen de traduction des œuvres artistiques, et dans la formule de déclaration et dépôt annexée à la loi, elle est nommément indiquée parmi les œuvres graphiques. M. Amar aussi développe la question sous tous ses aspects, dans son ouvrage très estimé sur la matière des droits d’auteurs; il passe en revue la doctrine et la jurisprudence de l’Italie et des autres Etats, et s’arrête devant l’argumentation présentée dans un de ces procès par M. Oscar la Vallée, avocat général à la Cour d’appel de Paris; argumentation qui pour être emphatique, n’est pas moins frappante de vérité et de justice : «Puisque la démocratie, disaitil, s’étend à tout, on peut dire que c’est la démocratie des beaux-arts; elle a son public comme la littérature à bon marché, elle a pour elle la foule, et jusque dans le domaine de l’art elle est féconde, puisqu’elle a refait les planches perdues de Marc Antoine, le collaborateur de Raphaël» — et il se déclare aussi ouvertement en faveur des droits du photographe, non sans rappeler les législations de la Norvège et de l’Allemagne qui donnent à la photographie un privilège, plus limité dans le temps, de cinq ans. L’agitation de la critique et les efforts des écrivains n’ont pas été sans fruits, même en Italie.
Weekly Transmission 15
VIII
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
Le photographe Charles Naya avait formé avec le concours d’un artiste, et non sans frais relativement considérables, un recueil de photographies des tableaux les plus renommés de la célèbre galerie de Venise. On trouva bientôt des reproductions abusives de ces photographies; procès intenté par M. Naya; la Cour de Venise condamna contrefacteurs et débitants, attendu que les photographies constituent une œuvre de l’esprit quand celui-ci a concouru à en faire une œuvre de l’art. Un photographe éclairé, M. Brogi, de Florence, s’est donné beaucoup de peine, dans une brochure exposant la question au point de vue de la doctrine, pour éloigner les doutes, provoquer la discussion au sein des chambres de commerce, ainsi que les voeux de la société italienne des auteurs et les déclarations du gouvernement ; il en a été récompensé : la réponse a été concordante, unanime, et l’on peut aujourd’hui affirmer que le droit d’auteur est aussi reconnu au photographe en Italie. Il ne sera pas sans intérêt à cet égard de connaître la note que le ministre italien a donnée, en avril 1886, à la chambre de commerce de Florence qui l’interpellait sur la question : “Par les études faites à ce sujet, je suis arrivé à la conviction que ni l’esprit ni la lettre des dispositions contenues dans ladite loi n’excluent de la catégorie des œuvres de l’esprit, de tels travaux dont la perfection, atteinte actuellement grâce à l’intelligence et au courage de nombreuses personnes qui cultivent cette branche spéciale des arts, nous place dans l’impossibilité morale de leur refuser, sans commettre une injustice, le caractère d’œuvres artistiques, aussi peu que nous le refusons aux produits d’autres branches analogues, telles que les produits de la lithographie, de la chalcographie, de la phototypie, etc., admis déjà conjointement avec ceux de la gravure, de la peinture et de la sculpture, au bénéfice de la protection accordée par la loi. Et en effet, si, aux termes de l’article ler de ladite loi, les auteurs des œuvres de l’esprit ont le droit exclusif de les publier, de les reproduire et d’en vendre les reproductions, on ne pourra refuser, dans la plupart des cas, le rang et la qualité d’œuvres artistiques aux reproductions photographiques qui exigent indubitablement le concours de connaissances théoriques et pratiques du dessin, des règles spéciales de la perspective et de l’optique, ainsi que la coopération d’un certain critère et de goûts artistiques. Une seule objection pourrait peut-être surgir : c’est la difficulté de distinguer les contrefaçons quand il s’agit de la reproduction de la même œuvre d’art ; ainsi, par exemple, quand plusieurs photographes prennent des reproductions de la même statue, du même monument, de la même peinture, etc.
Weekly Transmission 15
IX
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
Mais d’abord, cela est une question de nature plutôt juridique qu’administrative et, partant, elle incombe entièrement à la compétence de l’autorité judiciaire qui pourra, dans chaque espèce, juger et décider dans les contestations naissant de telles contrefaçons. Ensuite il est facile de faire observer que le choix spécial du point de vue nécessaire dans toute opération photographique, la diversité des contrastes de la lumière, la gradation des clairs-obscurs et des teintes que chaque photographe choisira et qu’il appliquera dans l’opération elle-même, la manière et la force de la teinte employée par chacun dans son propre travail, tous ces éléments qui constituent toujours des degrés divers de perfection, sensibles même pour les simples copies et servant à distinguer celles-ci les unes des autres, fournissent certainement, si ce n’est aux profanes de l’art, du moins aux praticiens et connaisseurs, des données suffisantes pour émettre un jugement sur l’existence ou l’absence d’une contrefaçon. En outre, eu égard au côté économique de la question, le fait n’a pu m’échapper que l’exercice de l’art professionnel du photographe exige certaines ressources pécuniaires pour les appareils, les coûteuses substances chimiques employées, les frais qu’occasionne le déplacement nécessaire pour aller prendre les épreuves négatives d’après nature, etc. Par conséquent, j’ai le plaisir d’annoncer à l’honorable président, pour qu’il puisse, quand le cas se présentera, en avertir les intéressés, que les déclarations qui seront faites en vue de réserver les droits d’auteur, soit pour des œuvres originales, soit pour des reproductions dans le domaine de la photographie seront admises à l’enregistrement. » Voilà une interprétation presqu'authentique de la loi, une autorité de plus pour guider la jurisprudence italienne.” (Henri Rosmini, Le Droit d'auteur : organe officiel du Bureau de l'Union internationale pour la protection des oeuvres littéraires et artistiques, Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle, Genève, 1888). Following: portraits de la famille des princes d'orléans (sons of louis-philippe) duc de nemours (Louis Charles Philippe Raphaël d'Orléans, 1814-1896, second son of King Louis-Philippe I of France, and his wife Maria Amalia of Naples and the Two Sicilies). prince de Joinville (François-Ferdinand-Philippe-Louis-Marie d'Orléans, 1818-1900, was the third son of Louis Philippe and his wife Maria Amalia). duc de montpensier (Antoine Marie Philippe Louis d'Orléans; 1824-1890, was the youngest son of King Louis Philippe of France and Maria Amelia). princesse de Joinville (Francisca Caroline Jeanne Charlotte Léopoldine Romaine Xavier de Paule Michèle Gabrielle Raphaëlle Gonzague de Bragance, 1824-1898, princess of Brazil). duc de penthièvres (Prince Pierre d'Orléans (1845-1919) was the son of François d'Orléans, Prince of Joinville and his wife, Princess Francisca of Brazil.
Weekly Transmission 15
1
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
mayeR fRèRes versus fRanCk (fRanÇois maRie louis alexandRe goBinet de villeCholle dit fRanCk, 1816-1906). documents for an early case of photographic copyright, paris, 1866. Eighteen albumen prints (18), cartes de visite on five sheets, captioned in ink, presented in two opposed columns, left colomn: Mayer, Mayer frères or Photographie Victoria printed names, right column: Franck studio name. 2500 euros
Weekly Transmission 15
2
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
mayeR versus fRanCk. duc de montpensier’s carte de visite.
Weekly Transmission 15
3
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
mayeR versus fRanCk. prince de Joinville & duc de nemours’ carte de visite.
Weekly Transmission 15
4
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
mayeR versus fRanCk. prince de Joinville & duc de nemours’ carte de visite (close-up).
Weekly Transmission 15
5
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
mayeR versus fRanCk. duc de penthièvres & princesse de Joinville’s carte de visite.
Weekly Transmission 15
6
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
mayeR versus fRanCk. duc de montpensier’s carte de visite (close-up).
Weekly Transmission 15
7
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
photography and the law hundred and fifty years later (2017) from Wikipedia The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children. Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film. Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit. The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer — the person who creates it, by default. However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary — as usual. Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his/her work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his/her work, where a substantial part of his/her work has been copied. Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies. A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced (a problem known as copyright orphan), has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them: Scanning old family photographs, without permission, to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright. Certain photographs may not be protected by copyright. Section 171(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public interest. For example, patent diagrams are held to be in the public domain, and are thus not subject to copyright. Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph can be performed through copying the photograph. This is because the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph. For there to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial part of the photograph.
Weekly Transmission 15
8
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
A photograph can also be a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in another work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic work, such as a sculpture, painting or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works. However, the subject matter of a photograph is not necessarily subject to an independent copyright. For example, in the Creation Records case, a photographer, attempting to create a photograph for an album cover, set up an elaborate and artificial scene. A photographer from a newspaper covertly photographed the scene and published it in the newspaper. The court held that the newspaper photographer did not infringe the official photographer's copyright. Copyright did not subsist in the scene itself – it was too temporary to be a collage, and could not be categorised as any other form of artistic work. The protection of photographs in this manner has been criticised on two grounds. Firstly, it is argued that photographs should not be protected as artistic works, but should instead be protected in a manner similar to that of sound recordings and films. In other words, copyright should not protect the subject matter of a photograph as a matter of course as a consequence of a photograph being taken. It is argued that protection of photographs as artistic works is anomalous, in that photography is ultimately a medium of reproduction, rather than creation. As such, it is more similar to a film, or sound recording than a painting or sculpture. Some photographers share this view. For example, Michael Reichmann described photography as an art of disclosure, as opposed to an art of inclusion. Secondly, it is argued that the protection of photographs as artistic works leads to bizarre results. Subject matter is protected irrespective of the artistic merit of a photograph. The subject matter of a photograph is protected even when it is not deserving of protection. For copyright to subsist in photographs as artistic works, the photographs must be original, since the English test for originality is based on skill, labour and judgment. That said, it is possible that the threshold of originality is very low. It is possible to say with a high degree of confidence that photographs of three-dimensional objects, including artistic works, will be treated by a court as themselves original artistic works, and as such, will be subject to copyright. It is likely that a photograph (including a scan – digital scanning counts as photography for the purposes of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) of a two dimensional artistic work, such as another photograph or a painting will also be subject to copyright if a significant amount of skill, labour and judgment went into its creation.
Weekly Transmission 15
9
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
in the usa, Photographing accident scenes and law enforcement activities is usually legal. At the same time, one must not hinder the operations of law enforcement, medical, emergency, or security personnel by filming. in hong kong, some public property owned by government, such as law courts, government buildings, libraries, civic centres and some of the museums in Hong Kong, photography is not allowed without permission from the government. It is illegal to equip or take photographs and recording in a place of public entertainment, such as cinemas and indoor theaters. in hungary, from 15 March 2014 when the long-awaited Civil Code was published, the law re-stated that a person had the right to refuse being photographed. However, implied consent exists: it is not illegal to photograph a person who does not actively object. in macau, a photographer must not take or publish any photographs of a person against his/her will without legal justification, even in a public place. Additionally, photography of police officers in Macau is illegal. in sudan and south sudan, travelers who wish to take any photographs must obtain a photography permit from the Ministry of Interior, Department of Aliens. in india, regulations apply to land-based photography for certain locations, and a permit is required for aerial photography, which normally takes over a month to be issued. in iceland, calling oneself a photographer, in line with most other trades in Iceland, requires the person to hold a Journeyman's or Master's Certificates in the industry. Exceptions can be made in low population areas, or for people coming from within the EEA. in spain, taking pictures of police officers in many circumstances was made illegal by a 2015 "Citizens' Security Law" with the stated purpose of protecting police officers and their families from harassment, the law have generated controversy because it may be harder to denounce police brutality. in france, the maximum penalty for distributing violent images is three years in prison and a fine of up to ₏75,000. New laws need time for interpretation, French law considers the dissemination of violent images a potential incitement of terrorist activity, but probably does’n’t apply to all situations, otherwise somebody publishing Nikki Haley, United States' Ambassador United Nations showing violent pictures, could enfrain French laws.
Weekly Transmission 15
10
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
daniel giRaRdin & ChRistian piRkeR. Controverses, une histoire juridique et éthique de la photographie, musée de l’Élysée et actes sud, 2008.
Weekly Transmission 15
11
Thursday 13 April 2017
.
Controversies: a legal & ethical history of photography... is an English translation of Controverses by Daniel Girardin and Christian Pirker, originally published in French in Switzerland in 2008. In his essay Beyond Appearances, Pirker discusses "the photographs that you will not see in this book." Sally Mann "refuses to exhibit or reproduce" her portrait of her daughter, Candy Cigarette (1989). Thomas Condon was convicted of "disturbing the peace of the dead" in 2001 after photographing corpses in a Cincinnati morgue, and his photographs cannot be published. Finally, Jackie Onassis won an injunction against a Dior advertisement photographed by Richard Avedon (1983) featuring her lookalike; "This ruling still remains in force", according to Pirker, though the photo was reprinted in Contested Culture (2000; by Jane M Gaines). Unsurprisingly, there are three photographs from the Swiss edition of Controverses that are not present in the English version. Graham Ovenden was convicted of indecent assault in 2013, and his nude photograph of Maude Hewes (1984) was removed. [It was included in the Channel 4 documentary For The Sake Of The Children (28th August 1997)] The nude portrait of Brooke Shields by Garry Gross (1975) was also omitted, as it was deemed illegal by UK police following the Pop Life exhibition. Irena Ionesco's full-frontal portrait of her daughter (1970) has been replaced by a topless portrait of her (1978). (Blog) In the first pages, the authors detail the trial Mayer & Pierson vs BethbĂŠder et SchwelbĂŠ about copying his Count of Cavour portrait (1856-1862, Appeal 1863).
serge plantureux - photographies Cabine d'expertises et d'investigations 80 rue Taitbout, rez-de-chaussée (Entrée du square d'Orléans) 75009 Paris + 33 140 16 80 80 www.plantureux.fr Number Fifteen, Third Year, of the Weekly Transmission has been uploaded on Tursday 13 April 2017 at 15:15 (Paris time) Forthcoming uploads and transmissions on Thursdays : Thursday 13 April 2017, Thursday 20 April 2017, 15:15 (Paris time) The “cabinet” is open every Morning 9-11 am, Thursday 3-7 pm every other moment by appointment.