ARW – Project France 
PDF We are releasing below a translation of the Court Decision of Jan. 26, 2012 “The Wall” (Sophie Robert) vs. Psychoanalysts issued by the District Court of Lille (France).
Analysis:
- The court rejects the request to nullify the summons,
- The court states that the psychoanalysts are not co-authors,
- The court asserts that the rights as an author are limited to the obligation to ensure that the views of the people interviewed are not distorted
- The court stated that Sophie Robert & Océan Invisible Productions are solely responsible for the tort and that Autistes Sans Frontières were not producers.
- The courts considers that Sophie Robert acted wrongfully and distorted the explanations of the plaintiffs
- The court censors the film and request Sophie Robert to remove the interviews of the plaintiffs
- The court orders Sophie Robert to remove the film from Autistes Sans Frontières’s website with a 100 EUR per day penalty
- The court sentenced Sophie Robert & Océan Invisible Productions to 19,000 EUR in tort
- The court ordered the decision to be published in periodicals for up to 9,000 EUR
- The court ordered Sophie Robert & Océan Invisible Productions to pay 6000 EUR in legal fees
- The court ordered Sophie Robert & Océan Invisible Productions to reimburse the legal fees of the paintiffs
- The courts requests provisional execuation of the judgment
Disclaimer: This translated version is provided for your convenience. This translation has been done in good faith. Yet, errors may occur. The French version signed by the court is the only accurate version and we advise you to refer to this French version for legal purposes.
Translation: Karen Wilshin, Revision: David Heurtevent
Documents available:
District Court of Lille
Judgement of January 26, 2012
Court n°1
Case : 11/09079
Contradictory procedure
PLAINTIFFS:
Mme. Esthela Solano-Suarez
5 rue d’Assas
75006 Paris
Represented by Me. Christian Charière-Bournazel, lawyer at the Paris bar, Me. Bertrand Debosque, lawyer at the Lille bar.
Mr. Eric Laurent
14, rue Saint Roch
75011 Paris
Represented by Me. Christian Charière-Bournazel, lawyer at the Paris bar, Me. Bertrand Debosque, lawyer at the Lille bar.
Mr. Alexandre Stevens
51 square Vergote
1030 Brussels
Represented by Me. Christian Charière-Bournazel, lawyer at the Paris bar, Me. Bertrand Debosque, lawyer at the Lille bar.
DEFENDANTS:
Ocean Invisible Productions, A limited company having its registered office at:
2 place aux Bleuets
59000 LILLE
Represented by Me. Benoit Titran, lawyer at the Lille bar.
Mme. Sophie ROBERT
2 place des Bleuets
59000 LILLE
Represented by Me. Benoit Titran, lawyer at the Lille bar.
Association “Autistes Sans Frontières”
92 avenue Niel
75017 PARIS
Represented by Me. Stéfan Squillaci, lawyer at the Lille bar, Me. Laetitia Bernard, lawyer at the Paris bar.
TRIBUNAL COMPOSITION:
President: Elisabeth POLLE-SENANEUCH, Vice-President
Assessor: Audrey DEBEUGNY, Vice-President
Assessor: Hicham MELHEM, Judge
Additionnal personnel : Johanna Brousse and Hélène Pignon
Clerk: Anne-Marie DELTOUR
ARGUMENTS:
The petition was notified by the plaintiffs on November 7 2011.
At the public audience of December 8 2011, date on which the said case was placed under deliberation, lawyers were advised that the court’s decision would be handed down on January 26 2012.
JUDGEMENT:
Contradictory in the first instance, handed down on January 26 2012, signed by Elisabeth POLLE-SENANEUCH, President and Joelle HUET, principal administrative assistant, acting as clerk.
PREAMBLE
Psychoanalysts Esthela Solano-Suarez, Eric Laurent and Alexandre Stevens were contacted in September 2010 by Sophie ROBERT asking them if they would be willing to be interviewed and filmed as part of a documentary provisionally entitled “Journey into the unconscious” produced by OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS with a view to public diffusion through cinemas and a DVD for sale or rental.
The three psychoanalysts, considering that their views had been distorted, presented a request to the President of the District Court in Lille on 18 October 2011, to appoint a court officer to seize the footage of the film in order to evidence the integrality of their interviews and also to prove that these had been distorted and fragmented.
This right was granted by court order on October 18 2011.
By court order of October 27 2011, OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS and Sophie ROBERT sought an emergency injunction against Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS on November 4 and 8 2011, in order to retract the said order by reason of protecting journalistic sources and the moral rights of an author to their work, without having to justify the need to deviate from the principle of contradiction. They requested payment of 2,000 Euros in damages in terms of article 700 of the civil procedure code.
On November 29 2011, all their demands were dismissed by court order and they were ordered to pay legal costs. The demands concerning unrecoverable expenses were also dismissed.
By decision of October 28 2011, acting on the request of October 27 2011, Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS were authorized to assign OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS, Mme. ROBERT and the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES to appear before the court in accordance with article L121-1 of the Intellectual Property Code and Article 1382 of the Civil Code.
They asked the tribunal:
- To forbid the defendants to broadcast the film, in any form whatsoever, through audiovisual, cinematographic or internet means under penalty of 15,000 Euros per day starting from the day this present judgment is served.
- To condemn the defendants in solidum to pay each of the plaintiffs the sum of 25,000 Euros in damages and interest in reparation of prejudice to their moral rights.
- To condemn the defendants in solidum to pay each of the plaintiffs the sum of 25,000 Euros in damages and interest in reparation of prejudice to their image rights.
- To condemn the defendants in solidum to pay each of the plaintiffs the sum of 25,000 Euros in damages and interest in reparation of damage to their reputation.
- To order that the judgment be published on the home page of the website of the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES at the address http://autistessansfrontieres.com for a period of two months from the date of this judgment.
- To order the publication of this judgment in five periodical reviews to be chosen by the plaintiffs, and this at the expense of the defendants for a total sum of 20,000 Euros before tax.
- To condemn the defendants in solidum to pay each of the plaintiffs the sum of 15,000 Euros, in accordance with article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code.
- To order the provisional execution of this judgment.
- To condemn the defendants in solidum to payment of the costs incurred by the present procedure, costs for which Me. Bertrand Debosque will be authorized to pursue payment in accordance with article 699 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The defendants appointed lawyers and were to appear in court on December 8, 2011.
The plaintiffs explained that they had been invited in their capacity as psychoanalysts to participate in a three-part documentary, provisionally or definitively entitled “Journey into the unconscious” produced by OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS with a view to audiovisual, cinematographic, internet and DVD dissemination.
They signed authorizations for the use of their image and their voice.
They claim that in September 2011, without having previously viewed the document, they discovered that their interviews had been cut and used in a distorted manner to make a biased 52-minute film finally entitled “The Wall“, with the sub-title “Psychoanalysis put to the test for autism” produced by OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS and the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES, and available on the said website since September 8 2011 as well as on numerous other sites.
Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS maintain that they retain an inalienable right to the work as well as a right to reconsider or withdraw. They consider that in cutting their interviews and distorting the sense of their views to create a polemical film aiming to ridicule psychoanalysis compared to cognito-behavioral therapies, their moral right was prejudiced.
They are also seeking reparation for the prejudice to their image on the basis that the use made of said image devalued them and was different to that for which they had agreed to its broadcast, in a militant film which made them look ridiculous or contemptible.
Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS further consider that each being a noted and recognized psychoanalyst, the distortion of their views, relayed by the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES was equally damaging to their reputation.
They are seeking to be indemnified for each of these three torts, that the exploitation and broadcasting of this contentious film be forbidden as well as the publication of this decision to enable the health community and general public to be made aware of the circumstances under which they were misled, and the distortion of their views.
At the hearing, Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS maintained their claims and added a request that if the film was not banned in its entirety, that their image and their views be deleted.
For the defense, Mme. ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS ask the court to declare null the court order delivered on November 7 and 11 2011, in accordance with articles 6 and 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, for insufficient detail of the views which had been modified, shortened, or reduced.
They also wish to point out that the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES did not produce the film in question, but simply benefitted from an authorization to broadcast it.
Reminding the definition of a documentary as opposed to a work of fiction, they point out that it may be controversial when the reality it portrays is also controversial.
Mme. ROBERT, owner of OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS maintains that she clearly explained her documentary film project in the authorizations to use their image and voice, signed by the plaintiffs.
The defendants underline that Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS have no claim to copyright on the interviews they gave as it is the interviewer, not the interviewee who holds this right.
Mme. ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS would also like to point out that in comparing the content of the rushes with that of the film, it can be seen that the views of the interviewees were not distorted.
Finally, they also wish to draw the court’s attention to the general interest aspect of the i brought by the film in the public interest and the fact that this documentary proceeds from the public right to information, in such a way that the court DISMISSES the requests formulated by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS.
In counterclaim, estimating that the procedure initiated by the plaintiffs damages their reputation, Mme. ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS request the publication of this judgment in five periodical reviews of their choice, at the plaintiff’s expense, for a total sum of 20,000 Euros in addition to their condemnation in solidum to payment of 10,000 Euros to OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS and 5,000 Euros to Mme. ROBERT based on article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code, with provisional enforcement.
The association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES describes itself as an umbrella group bringing together associations of parents of autistic children with the aim of enabling the development, professionalization and recognition of intensive and/or early therapy for people with autism and ensuring national representation to public powers and national organizations.
As part of this, the association wished to obtain the right to broadcast the document made by Mme. ROBERT as it successively deals with the definition of autism, its causes and its treatment using psychoanalysis. It maintains that the plaintiffs only brought the present action, trying to ban the film’s diffusion, because the result of the work carried out by Mme. ROBERT was not to their satisfaction and did not serve their point of view, in a context where there is a greater and greater consensus challenging psychoanalytical theory as it relates to autism.
The association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES invokes the nullity of the summons due to its lack of precision and violations of the provisions of article 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.
In any case, it requests that it be exonerated due to lack of proof.
In the question of damage to their moral right invoked by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS, the defendants maintain that in no way can they have copyright over the work of Mme. ROBERT, in application of the dispositions set out in article L113-7 of the Intellectual Property Code.
The association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES further maintains that in the question of the image rights of the plaintiffs, that the use made of their image in the film in question does not exceed the terms of the authorization given, as much in the tenor of the interview as in its use, in its integrality or in extracts, the director cannot be accused of any contractual fault. The defendants maintain that in all cases, they are not party to any cession of voice and image rights and that therefore they cannot be accused of any wrongdoing.
Finally, the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES maintains that the views of the plaintiffs were in no way distorted by the director and that there is no material proof of the damage to their reputation.
The association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES further states that if by some extraordinary measure they are held accountable for whatever fault, that the plaintiffs seeking reparation for prejudice, have brought no proof of the association’s responsibility neither in the alleged damage nor of the existence of the amount of prejudice. It also stresses the clearly disproportionate character of the banning and publication measures requested.
In counterclaim, in reparation for the plaintiffs’ actions which they esteem to be manifestly abusive, the defendants are seeking payment of the sum of 100,000 Euros in damages and interest, in addition to the sum of 45,000 Euros on the basis of article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code and the publication of the present judgment.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
On the nullity of the summons
Sophie ROBERT, OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS and the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES want to annul the document initiating the proceedings because of a total lack of precision regarding the views which were distorted or transformed, preventing them from defending themselves correctly and preventing the court from carrying out its jurisdictional mission.
Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Code states “to support their claims, the parties are responsible for basing them on alleged facts“; article 56 of the same Code provides that “the summons contains, on pain of nullity, other than the clauses prescribed by the officer of the court, the object of the demand setting out the grounds in fact and in law.”
In terms of article 14, the nullity of an act of procedure can only be pronounced if the adversary requesting it can prove the grievance causing the irregularity, even when it is a case of a substantive formality or public order.
In this case, the summons delivered on November 7 and 11 2011, in terms of articles L121-1 of the Intellectual Property Code and 1382 of the Civil Code, sets out explicitly that the dispute relates to the distortion of the views expressed by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS in the interviews they gave for the film “The Wall“. With regards to the aforementioned texts, the explanation of the grounds in fact and in law appears sufficient.
In addition, the findings do not justify any grievance based on their written submission in that they were able to present a precise and detailed defense based on the use made by Mme. ROBERT of their views in editing her film.
It follows that the request for nullity is dismissed.
On the dispositions of article L121-1 of the Intellectual Property Code
It follows from article L121-1 of the property code that “the author has a right to have their name, their quality and their work respected. This right is attached to their person. It is perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptibly. On death it is transmissible to the author’s heirs. The exercise of these rights may be willed to a third party.”
To be recognized as co-authors, Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS would have to prove that they made either a specific contribution to the intellectual design or directly intervened in the creation or filming of the documentary, with a personal power of decision or orientation, likely to characterize this quality of co-author.
In this case, Mme. ROBERT produced a documentary film; it is not a work of fiction, but a work designed to allow people to expand their knowledge and not the result of a pre-existing creation.
After presentation by Mme. ROBERT of her audiovisual project, on October 23, November 3 and 5 2010, Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS all signed disclaimers authorizing the use of their image and voice (documents 1 to 3).
It is clear and unequivocal from the terms of these disclaimers that the project, initially entitled “Journey into the unconscious” concerned a 3-part documentary film, approximately 90 minutes long. Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS were essentially interviewed in the second part, relating to the exploration of pervasive behavioral disorders (psychosis and autism), the psychoanalytical interpretation of the origin and dynamic of these disorders, the way in which psychoanalysis acts on them, as well as the relations between psychoanalysis and neuroscience.
As director, and by virtue of the provisions of article L113-7 of the Intellectual Property Code, Mme ROBERT is the author of the documentary film in question.
There is no question that the interviews were prepared jointly by Mme. ROBERT on the one hand and Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS on the other and that the questions drawn up by the defendant were not communicated in advance to the interested parties. Finally, by studying the rushes one can see that the interviewees answered the interviewer spontaneously.
It also appears that Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS had no power of intervention in the intellectual design of the work, its editing and the choice of extracts used, so they cannot claim a right to reconsider or withdraw which would imply that the final document was submitted to them before being broadcast.
As a result, Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS cannot be recognized as co-authors of the film “The Wall” and their request in respect of the violation of their moral right, one of the composite parts of copyright, should be rejected.
On the use of the interviews
As Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS signed authorizations for the use of their image and their voice by Mme. ROBERT in the making of a 90-minute film, they cannot accuse her of not reproducing their interviews in their entirety in the final version, even more so in that each of them was interviewed for between one and three hours and that they had expressly consented to the use of their interviews “as may be decided on editing (…) in their entirety or as extracts“. They must have known that their interviews would be cut.
Nevertheless, Mme. ROBERT’s right as the author, to create an original work, stamped with her own personal composition and style, is limited by her obligation to ensure that the views of the people interviewed are not distorted. We must therefore decide whether this is the case in examining the choice of extracts used in the film “The Wall“.
In the film following Mme. ROBERT’s voiceover comment “in relation to psychosis and autism, the traditional explanation is that the mother’s depression, during pregnancy or in the first few months following the birth alters the mother/child relationship and is responsible for these serious problems.” (DVD part 1, 4:50), M. STEVENS gives the following answer: “that may be the case. You understand that when the child arrives, when they arrive in these conditions where the other, their first other, the mother, is extremely depressed, that is to say will be absent from him, will be looking at him differently, in another type of hold on him; that this might mean on occasion that this child will choose to withdraw. Sometimes, when the mother is depressed in utero, finally when she is pregnant or at birth it can be sometimes, the child may be autistic.” (DVD part 1, 5:15).
However in the complete interview, to the question asked by Mme. ROBERT, “Traditionally the origin of autism is attributed to maternal depression in utero in the first few months of life. What do you think?” (TCR 08:02:05), Mr. STEVENS replies: “That may be the case. You understand…(cf above)…but it is not obligatory. I think that such a causal hypothesis implies that we would have to say – it is a statistical hypothesis – we have to say that sometimes, when the mother is depressed, pregnant or at birth, that can sometimes, the child may sometimes be autistic and sometimes not. And for autistic children, sometimes the mother was depressed, sometimes not. It’s a type of causality which is worth the same as the statistics.” (TCR 08:02:05 to 08:03:30).
Also not included in the film were the views expressed by Mr. STEVENS earlier in the interview, but on the same subject: “Are you asking what causes autism?”
First of all it is the subject’s own responsibility. It’s he who chooses – it’s strange to say that a tiny baby chooses, but that’s how it is – to withdraw from a certain dimension of invasion that he has known. It is true that the child’s choice can also vary depending on what they get from the other, from the outside world, from others, but I don’t think that it is bad parents who are largely responsible for making their children autistic. I wouldn’t place the responsibility, the blame for that, on the parents.” (TCR 07:55:32 to 07:56:34).
In answer to Mme. ROBERT’s question “Why do certain people with autism not speak?”, Mr. STEVENS replies: “I think that: choose the subject, I say it knowing full well that it has an enigmatic, even mythical dimension, of foundation: He came into the world like that. But I say that so that you don’t understand that, or so that you understand that I don’t consider that the other made an error and that it’s the parents who did wrong, I don’t think that’s the case. Of course it may be the case, but it is not necessarily so“. (TCR 07:57:41 to 07:58:09);
In acting as she does, Mme. ROBERT makes it seem falsely, that for Mr. STEVENS, the parents are responsible or to blame. The introductory speech to the film in voiceover concludes: “for the psychoanalysts autism is a psychosis, to put it another way, a major psychic disorder resulting from a bad maternal relationship.”, reinforcing this analysis.
It follows that Mme. ROBERT deliberately distorted the sense of Mr. STEVENS explanation, and that making him appear to take such a rigid position on the negative role of parents in the causes of autism could not but harm his image and his reputation, whereas he has a more moderate position on this subject.
Concerning Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ:
The comparison of the film and the rushes submitted to the court reveal that several extracts of the interview with Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ were taken out of context or were shown as answers to a different question to that initially asked by Mme. ROBERT.
In the film in response to Mme. ROBERT’s question (DVD part 1, 15:46) “The psyche does not evolve separately from the brain, it does not wander alone in the void. If you have a child which has a normal brain and which works well on one side, and on the other an autistic child for example whose brain does not work well doesn’t that make a fundamental difference to his ability to communicate with the outside world?” Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ replies “This way of seeing a causal link is very simplistic. What we can see when dealing with autistic children is precisely that they are sick of language, that autism is a way to defend themselves from language.” (DVD 16:34).
However, in the complete interview, this comes in response to the question from Mme. ROBERT: “I want to know if the discovery of genetic causes for autism and neurological lesions has modified your approach to autism as a psychoanalyst?” (TCR 18:06:17) and Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ’s reply to the initial question does not appear in the film.
In the same way, Mme. ROBERT included the following comments by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ: “when we receive an autistic child, we practice a psychoanalysis which is pure invention. That is, we are faced with a subject who, most of the time, is unable to speak.” DVD part 3, 02:31) in reply to the question “How do you treat autistic children?”, whereas in the initial interview, the question asked was “How does psychoanalysis affect the way you look at autism for example, on the origins of autistic problems?”(TCR 17:20:12)
Elsewhere, in the film, after a comment in voiceover “for psychoanalysts, the father is also guilty. Guilty of being absent or transparent, guilty of being submissive to his wife, guilty of having been unable to stand between the child and the maternal ogre.” (DVD part 2, 15:40) there is a question from Mme. ROBERT: “If the child does not speak it’s because the mother disregards what the father says?”. (DVD part 2 16:40) followed by interventions by Mme. LOISON, then Mme SOLANO-SUAREZ (DVD part 2, 16:48) “but fundamentally, the function of the father is symbolic and sometimes the real father does not have this symbolic function, he can be absolutely adorable and kind, and the child is nonetheless confronted with a symbolic lack in terms of the paternal function.”
Here again the answer was given to a different question from Mme. ROBERT in the complete interview.”There are families where there is one autistic child and the other children are perfectly normal. What’s more, it’s like that in most families, it’s not an entire family of autistic children. How do you explain that a mother didn’t have the handbook for one child, but did for the others?” (TCR 17:44:22); At certain moments, the extracts of the views of Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ are excessively short and separated from the explanatory context of the interview, so that particularly in the film, in answer to Mme. ROBERT’s question “Why is it not a maternal function, why is it not a maternal symbol, why give it a sex?” her answer is “The law of the mother is a law of whim.” (DVD part 2 18:06); this formulation is almost impossible to understand without the rest of the plaintiff’s answer which explains her view.
The same thing happened in the following extract: in the film “no desire to control, no desire to educate, no imposition of anything whatsoever.” (DVD part 3) which was taken out of context and separated notably form Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ’s preceding phrase “What is the analyst’s position? It is a very difficult position; one which involves absolute respect for the child” (TCR 17:22:30) and therefore makes her view seem ambiguous.
It appears under the circumstances that Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ is right in claiming that the way in which Mme. ROBERT edited extracts from her interview distorted her views for the same reasons as those retained concerning Mr. STEVENS.
Concerning Eric LAURENT:
Mr. LAURENT only appears at the very end of the film (DVD part 3, 10:10) in a unique intervention relative to the relations between psychoanalysis and science.
In the complete interview, he responds to the following question from Mme. ROBERT “In the case of autism for example, where there would seem to be an etiology, that is a brain which does not work correctly, is it compared to a psychotic child, that that’s the difference? Independently of the cure, independently of the solutions?” There follows a detailed response from Mr. LAURENT lasting7 minutes. (TCR 03:00:14 to 03:07:38) of which only the final remarks are included in the film. “So, if you like, for psychoanalysis it is a question of also being the instrument of disenchantment (cut in the film of one minute). There is hope coming from the field of biology, and this hope, it would be great to believe in it, if we could believe that tomorrow, tomorrow we will have the answers, well what psychoanalysis has to say towards all beliefs is to try to be able to let humanity exist without becoming hooked on the latest fads, that’s part of what we’re trying to do. That’s why this dialog with neuroscience is not simply a question of a question of informing ourselves of the results and making it known that we will not be changing our fundamental practice, the orientation of our practice, it’s also trying to let humanity exist without placing too much hope in all the good news that appears each day and which are made to try to keep a proportion of good news in an environment where there is very little.” (TCR 03:05:37 to 03:07:38).
In terms of documents28 and B submitted by him, Mr. LAURENT maintains his warning detached from general reasoning becomes a purely negative message, bringing no hope, even more so in that it is immediately followed by conclusion affirming in contrast, the hope brought by neuroscience theories.
On the contrary, Mme. ROBERT claims that the extract she chose contributes to illustrate in the film the psychoanalytical vision of the benefits brought by neuroscience to the understanding of autism, that is a vision at best skeptical, or opposed to these benefits and refusing genetic and neuro-scientific knowledge in the etiology of autism (cf defendants’ conclusions page 37.) She maintains that there was no distortion of the views of Mr. LAURENT.
However, the result of the chosen extract, its position and conclusion of the other interviews presented in a context where it has been shown that Mme. ROBERT made false use of the views expressed by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ and Mr. STEVENS that the image of Mr. LAURENT was damaged in that only a negative message of psychoanalysis was transmitted even though earlier in the interview he said however “We have to take onboard that we live with the fact the description of ourselves as a biological mechanism becomes more complex with the hypotheses coming from neuroscience, by fundamental biology, by such and such a researcher, such and such a team etc. we comment on them, continuous comments that we should make, which of course are what distinguishes psychoanalysis today.” (TCR 03:044:41), so that it cannot be taken from these views that the plaintiff refuses to accept current scientific thinking as Mme. ROBERT has concluded.
This distortion of his views is wrong.
It now appears that the incorrect behavior of Mme. ROBERT invoked by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS is characterized and is likely to open the way to reparation for the damage to the image and reputation of the plaintiffs.
If, as maintained by Mme. ROBERT in her written submission, the subject dealt with effectively appears to be of general interest and is part of the right to inform the public, it does not authorize the shortening and distortion of the views of Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS.
On the prejudice suffered by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS
Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS have produced evidence to show that the film “The Wall” has been available on the internet since September 8, 2011, on the website of the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES as well as numerous other sites documents 5, 6, 8 and 9). It has been screened in public, notably in Paris on September 6, 2011, at the Univers cinema in Lille on November 8, 2011 and Grenoble Saint Martin d’Heres University on November 30, 2011 (documents 9, 26 and H). Finally, the procedure instigated by the plaintiffs has generated a lot of debate on the initiative of Mme. ROBERT.
Concerning the widespread distribution of a film containing extracts, which it has been established distort the views held, the damage to the image and reputation of Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS is characterized and justifies reparation of the prejudice suffered by the plaintiffs.
In consequence, Mme ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS are sentenced in solidum to pay Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ and Mr. STEVENS the sum of 7,000 Euros each, and 5,000 Euros to Mr. LAURENT.
On the responsibility of the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES
The fault attributed to Mme. ROBERT on the basis of article 1382 of the Civil Code cannot be retained with regards to AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES from the moment that it cannot be shown that it was aware of the shortened and distorted nature of the views held by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS in the film “The Wall”.
The association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES is not a producer as claimed in writing by the plaintiffs; it broadcast the documentary in question with authorization from those holding the rights to the contested work. No personal fault may be attributed and the demands made against it can only be rejected.
On banning the film
Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS quite rightly request that the damage to their reputation and their image cease.
The way to do this is to order that all extracts of their interviews be withdrawn from the film “The Wall” under pain of penalty payments amounting to 100 Euros per day with effect from the delivery of this judgment, without it being necessary to ban the contested film in its entirety.
On the publication of this present judgment
Taking into account the widespread diffusion of the film and the resulting debate, full reparation for the prejudice caused to Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS justifies publication of this present judgment in three periodical reviews of their choice.
In consequence, the court sentences Mme. ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS in solidum to pay all costs linked to this publication for a maximum amount of 9,000 Euros in total.
In addition the court DISMISSES the plaintiff’s demand for publication of the judgment on the website of the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES, as the association did not contribute to the damage caused by the distortion of their views.
On the counter claims
Of being taken to court abusively invoked by the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES. The court considers this has not been proved even though the court rejected the demands against the association made by Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS
On the provisional execution
The nature of the dispute leads necessarily to the pronouncement of provisional execution.
On the irrecoverable expenses
It would be unfair for the plaintiffs to bear the entire expenses as set out by them and not included in the costs, so Mme. ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS are sentenced in solidum to pay to Mme. SOLANO-SUAREZ, Mr. LAURENT and Mr. STEVENS the sum of 2,000 Euros each in accordance with article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code.
FOR THESE REASONS THE COURT
STATES that Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ, Eric LAURENT and Alexandre STEVENS are not co-authors of the film “The Wall”.
NOTES that the extracts of interviews with Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ, Eric LAURENT and Alexandre STEVENS in the film “The Wall” directed by Sophie ROBERT and produced by OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS damaged their image and their reputation in that the sense of their views was distorted.
DECLARES Sophie ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS entirely responsible for the prejudice suffered by Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ, Eric LAURENT and Alexandre STEVENS
As a result, the court
SENTENCES them in solidum to pay to:
Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ the sum of seven thousand Euros (€7,000)
Alexandre STEVENS the sum of seven thousand Euros (€7,000)
Eric LAURENT the sum of five thousand Euros (€5,000)
In damages and interest in reparation for the prejudice caused by the damage to their image and reputation.
DECLARES that the extracts of interviews given by Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ, Eric LAURENT and Alexandre STEVENS should be completely removed from the film “The Wall” under provisional penalty of payment of 100 Euros for every day starting from the delivery of this judgment.
ORDERS the publication of this present judgment in three periodical reviews to be chosen by Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ, Eric LAURENT and Alexandre STEVENS and this at the expense of Sophie ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS to an amount not exceeding nine thousand Euros (€9,000) in total.
DISMISSES the demand by Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ, Eric LAURENT and Alexandre STEVENS that this judgment be published on the website of the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES
DISMISSES the outstanding claims from both parties
ORDERS the provisional execution of the present judgment
SENTENCES Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ, Eric LAURENT and Alexandre STEVENS in solidum to pay to the association AUTISTES SANS FRONTIERES the sum of two thousand Euros (€2,000) in accordance with article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code.
SENTENCES Sophie ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS in solidum to pay to Esther SOLANO-SUAREZ, Eric LAURENT and Alexandre STEVENS the sum of two thousand Euros (€2,000) each in accordance with article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code.
SENTENCES Sophie ROBERT and OCEAN INVISIBLE PRODUCTIONS in solidum to pay the entire expenses of Me. Bertrand DEBOSQUE in accordance with article 699 of the Civil Procedure Code.
IN CONSEQUENCE
THE FRENCH REPUBLIC SUMMONS AND ORDERS
All Court officers to enforce the present judgment as herein required
To the GENERAL PROSECUTORS AND THE PROSECUTORS OF THE REPUBLIC to enforce the present judgment at the District Court
To all police Commanders and Officers to give support whenever legally requested to do so
In witness whereof the present judgment was signed and sealed with the seal of the Court.
For official notification
The Court Clerck
J. Huet
