> 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.
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.
Another paragraph from your link says, "The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc."
This seems to fully justify the headline and opening sentence.
Is there any evidence of this in the legislative history?
Actually I was surprised to learn that in the US you can not only take a photo of another person without their consent, but also publish it.
The “line” in the US is more of a complex curve, and commercial use or not is insufficient to make a conclusion either way (for just one common example of conmercial use without subject permission that is allowed, consider journalistic use.)
When Croatia was scheduled to join EU in July 2013., in the run up to that date its government gave out fat subsidies to anyone who converted their land into a wineyard, because once they joined the EU, game over.
a) was introduced in 1725, and carried into the EU at the time of EU formation.
b) was repealed in 2008
c) while it's true france has lobbied to re-introduce the law since then, they have failed so far.
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?
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.
I believe in privacy. If I'm in my home, a bathroom, a private club or the like then you should not be subject to intrusion or recording without your permission. But I don't have the right to ask someone not to look at me when I am outside on the street and to me it seems weird that anyone would have a problem with that.
If you don't want strangers to see you, don't go out in public.
Yes, of course. That is why I have no right to tell you that you can't photograph what you can see in the public space. You have just as much right to use it as I do.
> The public space is not a free zone to abuse other people.
Taking a photograph of someone in a public space is not "abuse".
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.
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.
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.
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.
As opposed to Sweden where it is illegal to post pictures of public art installations online regardless of commercial use.
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.
Most countries have a “freedom of panorama” law, which allows you to photograph a skyline and include copyrighted buildings in your shot. So while you’d be perfectly okay capturing a photo of Big Ben in London, you just couldn’t go off and build a brand new version in your backyard without infringing copyright.
But the EU allows countries to opt-out of including this freedom of panorama clause in their copyright laws. France has chosen to utilize this exception.
Can France extradite me?
The Eiffel Tower was dark. Looked very odd.
Same with patents.
I'd guess that these aren't large enough differences to afford a new date but I almost feel resigned to the idea that this is exactly what will happen.
It would depend on how substantive the changes were. But most of your proposals are probably sufficient, yes.
For instance, in the UK the copyright in a film only expires as you say in the event that the film does not have a director, screenplay, authored dialogue or composed music. If it has any of them them the countdown begins at the end of the year in which the last of them dies (which is fifty years in this instance). Also worth noting that even though the film may go out of copyright in this scenario, the script/dialogue does not until seventy years after the death of the writer. Work for hire is irrelevant to that consideration.
Last week The Vessel opened in New York City. It's an enormous sculpture you can climb, six stories tall, takes up half a block and it's clearly visible from Jersey. It's illegal to take pictures of it without paying royalties for the next 109 years and 51 weeks, because that's what US copyright law says.
There shouldn't be any copyright requested or registered, and if one was awarded automatically, the state could have re-released it into the public domain.
The "copyright law" merely helps enforce this -- it doesn't dictate a monument should have a copyright, nor that the owner of the copyright should ask for money for taking pictures of it.