
Photos of the Eiffel Tower at night are restricted due to copyright (2017) - sgt
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/14/photos-eiffel-tower-night-illegal
======
nmc
Classic urban legend.

> Views of the Eiffel Tower taken by private individuals for private use do
> not require prior agreement. However, professionals must contact our teams,
> who will inform them of the conditions of use governing images.

[https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-
eiffel...](https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel-tower)

EDIT:

Just to be clear: copyright DOES NOT PREVENT ANYONE from PHOTOGRAPHING the
tower at night. It only prevents you from profiting from a photograph that you
took of the illuminated tower (and then only if the tower is the main feature
of the photograph) without a license agreement from the copyright holder.

This is not supporting either the principle or the consequences of copyright,
simply debunking the idea that photographing the tower at night is illegal.

~~~
seba_dos1
So what? It doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

~~~
14
I have to agree. These are the type of stupid laws I read that completely
turns me off of a country. What other ridiculous laws would I have to endure
if I were to visit?

~~~
JeanMarcS
Every countries have stupid laws by the way

[https://www.stupidlaws.com/](https://www.stupidlaws.com/)

~~~
kiliancs
Without a source, how can I tell which ones are real?

------
tsherr
Copyright law is completely bugged. Copyright should last 10 years or the life
of the creator. And putting lights on a tower shouldn't be copywritten.

~~~
vortico
The problem with that is it encourages murder. That's the reason for the
lifetime + X years rule.

~~~
logfromblammo
Putting a variable into the equation was a mistake to begin with. You
shouldn't have to look a person up in an encyclopedia to know when a copyright
expires. It should be a fixed 20 years, automatic, with no extensions or
exceptions, and no ex-post-facto alterations of the terms.

~~~
vortico
Certainly, I agree. But the parent comment said "10 years or the life of the
creator". If copyright expired the day of the creator's death, it would
encourage murders. Better to have just "10 years from creation", but _much_
worse to have "10 years or the life of the creator."

------
chrisBob
France has other unusual photo standards also. Americans traveling to France
should be aware that in general you CAN'T photograph an individual in public.

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France)

~~~
thefounder
And you find it OK for people to photograph you without your consent? Unless
you are a public figure I can't see why it shouldn't be ilegal.

~~~
b1r6
If I can perceive photons bouncing off of you in public with my eyes, why
can't I capture an approximate record of the arrangement of those photons in a
digital format?

In the former, I'm storing it in analog form in my mind. In the latter, I'm
storing it in digital form on silicon.

If you really don't want to be seen, then don't go in public?

~~~
thefounder
Being seen is not the same as being recorded.

Does your GF mind if you record her in bed without her consent?

Explain her your photons bouncing BS or tell her that if she doesn't want to
be recorded she shouldn't undress with someone else in the same room.

------
edejong
The light display is under copyright! But that seems rather untenable. When do
the photons emerging from the Eiffel tower sieze to be copyrighted? Would a
reflection in a window or puddle be in violation? What about an aerial shot of
Paris?

IANAL, but it seems to me a flimsy argument: putting a large, unpreventable
artwork in the middle of a public space. IMHO, if you want your copyright to
be upheld, the creator needs to show a reasonable amount of effort to limit
possible copyright infringement.

~~~
Mindwipe
> When do the photons emerging from the Eiffel tower sieze to be copyrighted?

When they cease to be recognisable as a pattern in front of a judge.

> Would a reflection in a window or puddle be in violation?

Yes, as long as reasonably recognisable and substantive of the display. Not
really any different the mirror in SLR camera taking the picture.

> What about an aerial shot of Paris?

Probably not, as you wouldn't be able to see a distinguishable amount of the
lights from an aerial shot. Depends on the resolution.

> IANAL

I'm not sure what you think your opinion adds then tbh.

> IMHO, if you want your copyright to be upheld, the creator needs to show a
> reasonable amount of effort to limit possible copyright infringement.

For the avoidance of doubt this is not legally true in almost any circumstance
in pretty much any country in the world.

~~~
rtkwe
> Not really any different the mirror in SLR camera taking the picture.

Pedantic point but the mirror isn't involved when a picture it taken. It flips
up out of the way and the light goes directly from the lenses to the
sensor/film. The mirror is only there for the viewfinder.

------
ashildr
So pictures that show the Eiffel Tower at night will have to be filtered by
the glorious upload filters that were gifted to us by EU, Axel Voss, Germany
and France yesterday. And watercolors of the Eiffel Tower at night will be
filtered, too. Accidentally.

------
tapland
For commercial use.

As opposed to Sweden where it is illegal to post pictures of public art
installations online regardless of commercial use.

~~~
severine
If someone wants to read more, this artice contains several links:
[https://alj.artrepreneur.com/copyright-public-
art/](https://alj.artrepreneur.com/copyright-public-art/)

------
zamadatix
*for commercial use. The article says quotes "Technically taking the picture is also illegal" but every other source in the article says it is not against the copyright law to simply take a picture for personal use.

------
nmstoker
Given that it's due to the lights, with the day time image usage being fine, I
wonder if that means you could simulate a (new) photorealistic nighttime view
based on a day time image and post that subtly different image without
breaking the rules?!

Obviously wouldn't be a photograph, so isn't going to help tourists, but might
make enough of a point that they give up opposing it.

------
abhinai
I thought it was completely fine to photograph anything that is visible
publicly. Or is that principle different for each country? The problem with
this approach is if someday it became possible to create photographs from
human memory, would they want to force copyright on people's brains too?

~~~
peterwwillis
If you try to take pictures of buildings under construction in the US, state
or federal facilities, or airports, you'll find yourself in hot water pretty
quickly.

~~~
peterwwillis
Not sure why this was downvoted twice... It's a fact, you will get hassled in
many places in the US for taking pictures in public. It may not be illegal,
but you will definitely still get angry people with guns in your face, and
potentially arrested.

------
rixrax
Here is a link to articles that discusses 'property release' in relation to
commercial photography[0][1] and[0] includes a list of several other famous
properties which enjoy similar protections as Eiffel tower does.

[0] [https://help.author.envato.com/hc/en-
us/articles/36000047240...](https://help.author.envato.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360000472403-When-Do-I-Need-A-Model-or-Property-Release-) [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Privat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Private_property_2)

------
Yetanfou
/me wonders whether the copyright extends to very precise drawings of the
Eiffel Tower at night. Some drawings are close to photo-realistic and will
look exactly like a photo when presented at the lower resolution used on the
web. If such a drawing looks just like the real thing it will therefore be
indiscernible from a photograph. Would such an image be subject to copyright
claims? What if the artist switches around a few details, some braces which go
top-left to bottom-right in the real thing go top-right to bottom-left in the
drawing?

------
newshorts
What happens to me if I photograph it and live in another country?

Can France extradite me?

~~~
celticninja
France would request your extradition. The country you are in would actually
extradite you.

------
isostatic
The last scenes of the first season of Star Trek Discovery had a shot of Paris
at night (with lots of new futuristic buildings befitting a 23rd century
setting)

The Eiffel Tower was dark. Looked very odd.

~~~
plink
If the movie makers did this to avoid copyright infringement, why then
couldn't they have created their own lighting pattern for the shot? If the
very concept of putting any lights on the tower at night is the copyright,
that's a copyright deserving neglect at every opportunity -a law begging a
thumb to the nose.

~~~
isostatic
That's what confused me. They did light it up as a passing shuttle's
headlights briefly played over it, perhaps that was the choice, but it looked
really out of place.

------
coldcode
So what would happen if you took a picture at night and digitally changed the
light display to be something different? Is that a copy or not?

------
ilogik
relevant Tom Scott:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYH87V6EHrk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYH87V6EHrk)

~~~
kevingrahl
related Tom Scott:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdQ7gxU6Rg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdQ7gxU6Rg)

------
dotancohen
TLDR: The light display on the Eiffel Tower is an artistic work, and is thus
protected by copyright. We'll legally be able to photograph the Eiffel Tower
with it's artistic light display in 1985+70 = 2055.

~~~
jaxbot
I've really always considered copyright timelines of more than a decade to be
way too long, honestly. Same deal with patents. Once the initial impact of the
work is concluded, I don't see any reason not to open it to public domain.
Where did this copyright timeline come from? Who decided on 70 years in
France?

~~~
isostatic
Have exponential increase in renewal fees. Most things would drop out of
copyright after 10 years, but you could pay $1k a year to renew for year 10,
$2k for year 11, $1m for year 20, $1b for year 30, etc.

Same with patents.

