Oh, oh, did I break the law?

[AgX]

Here the article fails already. There is the law and there is the licensing policy of the rights holder.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... The rubber cop said my camera looked professional and that means I must be a pro... no pictures!

... but all the tourists were allowed to take their SLRs. My RB67 got me nothing but trouble that day.
...

I wonder if a medium format folder, such as a Zeiss Nettar 515/16, would get through.

 

[c41]

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

I’d wager there are a lot more privately owned ‘public’ spaces in the UK than France, each with their own set of terms and conditions, often including photographic restrictions.

 

[AgX]

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.

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

No. Use for non-commercial exploitation is not necessarily free concerning copyrighted works.
The critical term in such legislation is publication. Such is already done by posting an image on ones private website.


Whether a owner of rights puts charges against illegal private use of course is questionable.
However there are legal constructions as in Germany that allows even a third party to charge a private person.

 

[AgX]

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

The legal concept applied in France is not applied in all EU. Many EU countries restrict the rights of owners of buildings etc., similar to the UK.

 

[paul ron]

what bothers me most about this copyrite thing, why put up something in the public eye on a public building in an area flooded with tourists and then claim copyrite forbiding people from taking pictures of it?

perhaps the people should demand it be removed since it restricts their use of a public space where there is no expectancy of privacy. public displays are for the public!

 

[AgX]

This is another issue: "copyright" vs. "right on intellectual property".
Both terms are not identical. They are used in different parts of the world. For ease of us I myself mix them at Apug sometimes.

The latter one has not to be "claimed". Instead it is an inherit right of the creator. From the moment of the creation.

And this is not only about a piece of of art on a building. Already a building as such is protected. With the exception that such protection does not apply against publishing photographs taken from public ground, if there exists such freedom of panorama. Which does not in France or Belgium. There the Atomium itself is protected. And the rights owner holds to that protection.
The rights on the Eiffel Tower as such have gone under meanwhile.

 

[AgX]

Again I can only repeat myself: there are different legal concepts throughout the world and one must be cautious not to just apply a concept known from home (as above with "copyrighting").

 

[Theo Sulphate]

If I understand all this correctly: for anything you can see, then you can photograph it for your own personal viewing, BUT some places have rights forbidding you to place that photograph for public viewing such as on Instagram or Facebook (and obviously could not publish it in a book or magazine).

 

[AgX]

Exactly.

(or... nearly... meanwhile there is even legislation in Germany prohibiting in certain situations taking a photograph at all...)

One should not overestimate the issue, but one should always consider, aside of the legal situation, if some rights owner could be offended. If you think there would not be a problem with a rights owner, then it should be ok for you in any case. I mean, even if the legal situation is on his site in most cases he would not bother at all. And in the cases of this thread it is for him to get active, not any authority.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never published the photographs nor posted them on APUG so do I have to keep hiding under my bed?

 

[Anon Ymous]

... (or... nearly... meanwhile there is even legislation in Germany prohibiting in certain situations taking a photograph at all...)

Involving military establishments? Anything other than that?

 

[AgX]

No, but taking a photograph of someone in distress. This even is a criminal offense.
(new legislation from 2015)

 

[mgb74]

I never published the photographs nor posted them on APUG so do I have to keep hiding under my bed?

That depends. Did you remove the label on the mattress?

Laws never keep up with technology. When these copyright and IP laws were envisioned, publication meant a book. Now, you can "self publish" with a click of the mouse.

 

[MattKing]

I never published the photographs nor posted them on APUG so do I have to keep hiding under my bed?

Well no, at least not for your photographs of Paris anyways.

 

[PaulQ]

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

They didn't, only 37% of registered voters voted to leave,34% to stay (approx). The rest couldn't be bothered to vote, 72.2% turn out. If you'd said the majority of voters who'd voted........

 

[Fixcinater]

And fire ze missiles!

Ha! Thanks for this reference, haven't thought of this for a good long while.

AHHH MOTHERLAND!

 

[wiltw]

In a precedent set a number of years ago, the Pebble Beach Co., which owns the famed Lone Cypress and all the land around it, and which has registered the tree as its trademark, doesn''t take kindly to folks using its tree for commercial purposes. A sign at the top of the stairs leading down to the tree reads, "Photographs or art renderings of the Lone Cypress for commercial or promotional purposes cannot be taken or created without written permission from Pebble Beach Company." The artist caved,

"I signed a contract saying I''d never use their image of the cypress, or any Pebble Beach logo, again in any work, and I could not use this particular painting again," Mobley says. "I can no longer go onto Pebble Beach property, take pictures of the tree, or paint it. I''ve signed away my rights to any of that."​

Today, the Pebble Beach Company has no problem with folks snapping pictures of the Lone Cypress, and pasting those photos in their scrapbooks.

Just don''t try selling those photographs, or you risk the billion-dollar wrath of the Pebble Beach Co. And it''s not just photographs: The restrictions extend to paintings, sketches, and all other artistic renderings of the tree, as well. "An artist can paint the tree and hang it on their wall, but if they sell it, it becomes a problem,"​

Go ahead and take a photo or paint a picture of the tree, and hang it in your living room, he says. But if you sell it, or use it to promote your business, you''re using something that belongs to Pebble Beach Co.
The amazing thing about Pebble Beach Company''s restrictions on artistic reproductions of the Lone Cypress is that the company has managed to enforce its claim--a claim that lawyers interviewed feel would not stand up in court--without a single legal challenge.

 

[stormpetrel]

Regarding the Eiffel Tower

Day time
"L’image de la tour Eiffel de jour est dans le domaine public : son utilisation est libre de droit, elle est reproductible sans autorisation préalable de la SETE, gestionnaire de l’image du monument pour le compte de la Mairie de Paris.3
You can use your pictures of the Eiffel Tower without any restriction (even commercially) if the picture were taken during the day. You just have just to check were you set up your tripod.

Night time
"Les différents éclairages de la tour Eiffel (illumination dorée, scintillement, phare et les éclairages événementiels) sont protégés.
L’exploitation de l’image de la tour Eiffel de nuit est donc sujette à autorisation préalable de la SETE. Cette exploitation est soumise au paiement de droits dont le montant est fonction de l’utilisation envisagée, du plan média..."

During the night, the lighting of the Eiffel Tower is protected so you need a license if you want to have a commercial use of your pictures. Picture made for private use does not require any license....
The lighting of the Eiffel Tower is done by a private company not the city of Paris.