Oh, oh, did I break the law?

[Sirius Glass]

When I was in Paris did I break the law by taking night photographs of the Eiffel Tower?

Why It's Illegal to Take Photos of the Eiffel Tower at Night
Condé Nast Traveler

It's all because of that razzle dazzle. Read the full story


Shared from Apple News​

 

[railwayman3]

Surely copyright is only to protect artistic works against financial or other exploitation, not against taking a photograph in a public place for your own use. I agree that photographing something in a private gallery(or a concert or cinema) could be prevented, as a condition of entry, but we can't be prevented from photographing in a public area, so long as the picture is not used for any derogatory or illegal purpose.

 

[mikemgb]

Well, I'm glad you managed to do it without being arrested, I'm going to be there in 3 weeks and intend to do exactly the same thing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I put my camera in a tripod on the hotel balcony and I use the Jiffy Calculator for the exposure. http://f-sunny.com/night-exposures-in-a-jiffy/

 

[benjiboy]

It's very difficult to argue your legal rights with two huge gendarmes who are beating the shit out of you with their nightsticks, the French police are someone you don't mess with if you have any sense.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

You really screwed the pooch this time, Sirius.

You must send your photos back to France immediately with a written apology (in perfect French) and a wrapped croissant.

And fire ze missiles!


p.s. lava images are also illegal

 

[MattKing]

No, but you appropriated someone's copyright for your own use, so you owe big $.

 

[Svenedin]

Totally bonkers, completely French.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

"[...] but there’s still un petit problème: The lights installed by Pierre Bideau didn’t ignite until 1985, which means nighttime images and videos that feature his choreographed light show are still protected under the law."

Plainly silly. But then again you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
France can be entertaining. Among a raft of bizarre laws, pig farmers cannot call their cochons Napoleon!

 

[Sirius Glass]

"[...] but there’s still un petit problème: The lights installed by Pierre Bideau didn’t ignite until 1985, which means nighttime images and videos that feature his choreographed light show are still protected under the law."

Plainly silly. But then again you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
France can be entertaining. Among a raft of bizarre laws, pig farmers cannot call their cochons Napoleon!

I had to look up that one.

 

[Svenedin]

Cochon de lait: suckling pig. Yum.

 

[summicron1]

oh for pete sake -- just don't use your images in an ad or other commercial use and ur fine.

 

[railwayman3]

Then you wonder why the majority of UK voters wanted Brexit.

 

[Raphael]

Bonsoir,

You guys are funny..

Of course, the keywords to retain in this half-baked article is "commercial use"...

Like taking photos of Jackson Pollock paintings in MoMa, or more accurately (or even worse), taking snapshots of Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate in Chicago...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Bonsour,

Bonsoir,

You guys are funny..

Of course, the keywords to retain in this half-baked article is "commercial use"...

Like taking photos of Jackson Pollock paintings in MoMa, or more accurately (or even worse), taking snapshots of Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate in Chicago...

Pollock's 'Blue Poles' in Parly House are often photographed for whatever reason, and often appearing in tourism brochures. Of course, that is if you can find a camera wide enough to fit the thing in!

Cochon de lait: suckling pig. Yum.

Oui!

 

[Raphael]

However, Sirius, you rise incidentaly a point that is maybe a problem : a few years ago, you can have arguments with police if you use a tripod on the public ways of Paris, without explicit city authorization. As you were on hotel balcony, you were safe
Real jurisprudence on this subject is still unprecise... In a lot of case, it's to the police discretion... with a lot of arbitrary idiosyncrasy, I'm afraid.

 

[Down Under]

Sirius Glass, to be a criminal in your own mind can be enjoyable. It sets you apart from the hurdy gurdy of the circus that is today's crazy mad world in this late pre-apocalypse era.

Many museums, art galleries, tourist sites of historical interest and (increasingly) some public areas in Southeast Asia are now imposing a No Cameras rule for photographers. The clincher seems to be that anyone with a big DSLR (such as my Nikon D700) is increasingly regarded as a professional out for, shock horror, profiting from one's images. Carrying a tripod also puts you beyond the pale of the realm of law abiding citizens.

In Indonesia, land of rampant bureaucracy trying to control everything insight, where a small monkey in a uniform becomes a roaring lion with the self-appointed rank of General, a flunky will often race over to impose the Rule of Law whenever a foreigner with a camera turns up at the door. Usually a "gift" eases the situation and allows one to shoot images. This is the positive side of small time corruption. At times I pretend to not understand anything the minion is complaining about and they back off, unsure about how to deal with the crisis.

All the while dozens of shooters with their mobile phones are busy making images of everything in sight, especially of the 'buleh' being annoyed and harassed by low-rank (or no-rank) officialdom.

The silliness of the modern day world sometimes defies logic. Even Europe is not immune to the madness, I see.

 

[jim10219]

Everyone breaks the law everyday. Check this site out for weird laws still on the books.
http://www.truthin7minutes.com/weird-laws/

I doubt you’ll face extradition for what you did.

 

[AgX]

No, taking a photograph would not be an issue here as such.

But as I hinted at here many times, legal situations differ widely. They concern taking a photograph as such, or publishing a photograph. Then concerning a person's image or a building, or a group. These all vary between countries. There are even different, contrary legal concepts between countries. In Europe, where it is possible to cross borders in short time it even gets worse.
Moreover legislation changed. Here in Germany it meanwhile got that complicated, by law or court decisions, that I myself got difficulties to evaluate situations.


Amongst those concepts there is something as freedom of panorama. Which means that you can take and then publish photographs of buildings, works of art and such although there are related owners of rights. Prerequisite is that the photograph has been taken from public ground.

Such freedom of panorama does not exist in France. And it does not exist in some other countries.
For instance in Belgium the Atomium is protected from being published. There is a owner of rights and he gave a licence to a local photographer.

But even where there exists freedom of panorama you can get in trouble: in Germany there is such freedom, but if the owner already exploits photographs himself, you may not interfere in that business. Or when Christo covered the Berlin Reichstag the covering, that addition to a free building, was considered something limited in time and thus not falling under that freedom.

 

[paul ron]

Its getting out of hand with this no photo nonsense. I was told by security at the cloisters in NYC that I wasnt allowed to take pictures of the caslte, this is during the day! The rubber cop said my camera looked professional and that means I must be a pro... no pictures!

When I entered the museum part of the cloisters, I wasnt allowed to take my camera in... but all the tourists were allowed to take their SLRs. My RB67 got me nothing but trouble that day.

So now I go on Mondays when the cloisters are closed and shoot anywhere I want... just cant get inside the museum... too dark in there anyway.

BTW I see signs on the roadway to the Tribourough Bridge, NO PHOTOS! its getting stupid. If it can be seen form a public area, it can be photographed... thats the law here but some PC nut job wants to reinterpret your rights..

 

[rrusso]

BTW I see signs on the roadway to the Tribourough Bridge, NO PHOTOS! its getting stupid. If it can be seen form a public area, it can be photographed... thats the law here but some PC nut job wants to reinterpret your rights..

Well that's just a deterrent for the unknowing/unaware masses - at least that's how I'd interpret it. Maybe it's a bit unsafe and there are no good places to set up without becoming a traffic hazard? Never been there, so I don't know...

If I was challenged, and could set up safely, I'd tell them what they can do with their sign, and then add what a waste of taxpayers' money it was to have the sign made in the first place.

This assumes, of course, that the area is a public place?

 

[darkroommike]

Totally bonkers, completely French.

Not entirely there's also photography restrictions in place at the location of "that tree" at Pebble Beach, Google "The Lone Cypress" a Weston icon.

 

[wiltw]

"That said, the law is primarily aimed at commercial use. Those taking and sharing images for personal purposes need not worry "

 

[AgX]

"That said, the law is primarily aimed at commercial use. Those taking and sharing images for personal purposes need not worry "

Who says so?

 

[wiltw]

Who says so?

It says so in the article.