11 thoughts on “Why photos of the Eiffel Tower at night are Illegal”
This has nothing to do with the EU. And it has nothing to do with non commercial use. The photo itself would not be illegal – the commercial distribution would be. The Brits were equally uninformed about the EU – thus they chose Brexit. A pity.
It is hard to be an artist.
Their work should be protected.
Or maybe you are uninformed about the EU so you chose to remain? Bitter partisanship is the quickest road away from deep insight. It’s like alcohol. Your ability goes down, while your belief in your ability goes up.
Also, the video makes it very very plain about commercial vs noncommercial. So you corrected the OP pointlessly just so you could hijack the thread about Brexit. Pure trolling and I fell for it. Pity indeed.
It’s a very odd point of law here though. What ought to be protected is the work itself. I couldn’t go and make a duplicate of the Eiffel Tower. Absolutely. That would be stealing. But it seems a step away from that to say that a photo is also stealing. If the artwork is a 2d object and you captured it with fair completeness and at a resolution that opened the door for duplication, I can see the problem there too. But a public work must by necessity sacrifice some of its “mine and mine alone” quality. And the further statement that the illumination of a non-protected structure is protected… that seems over the line.
“I couldn’t go and make a duplicate of the Eiffel Tower. Absolutely.”
But the video makes it clear you could make a duplicate of the Eiffel Tower. That’s why there’s one in Las Vegas.
Fortunately, I didn’t waste my time watching the other 3 minutes of the video.
The duplicate Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas is allowed only because the copyright has expired. I was talking about what you can and can’t do with something whose copyright is still extant. Sorry if I wasn’t being clear.
nah his post was much more useful than yours. saved me the trouble of having to click on the bogus clickbait title.
And theres one in Blackpool- (and that happened only a year or two after the original)
If this is a quirk of the EU- why does the same thing (no commercial reproduction) apply to the Hollywood sign?
This has nothing to do with the EU. And it has nothing to do with non commercial use. The photo itself would not be illegal – the commercial distribution would be. The Brits were equally uninformed about the EU – thus they chose Brexit. A pity.
It is hard to be an artist.
Their work should be protected.
Or maybe you are uninformed about the EU so you chose to remain? Bitter partisanship is the quickest road away from deep insight. It’s like alcohol. Your ability goes down, while your belief in your ability goes up.
Also, the video makes it very very plain about commercial vs noncommercial. So you corrected the OP pointlessly just so you could hijack the thread about Brexit. Pure trolling and I fell for it. Pity indeed.
It’s a very odd point of law here though. What ought to be protected is the work itself. I couldn’t go and make a duplicate of the Eiffel Tower. Absolutely. That would be stealing. But it seems a step away from that to say that a photo is also stealing. If the artwork is a 2d object and you captured it with fair completeness and at a resolution that opened the door for duplication, I can see the problem there too. But a public work must by necessity sacrifice some of its “mine and mine alone” quality. And the further statement that the illumination of a non-protected structure is protected… that seems over the line.
“I couldn’t go and make a duplicate of the Eiffel Tower. Absolutely.”
But the video makes it clear you could make a duplicate of the Eiffel Tower. That’s why there’s one in Las Vegas.
Fortunately, I didn’t waste my time watching the other 3 minutes of the video.
The duplicate Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas is allowed only because the copyright has expired. I was talking about what you can and can’t do with something whose copyright is still extant. Sorry if I wasn’t being clear.
nah his post was much more useful than yours. saved me the trouble of having to click on the bogus clickbait title.
And theres one in Blackpool- (and that happened only a year or two after the original)
If this is a quirk of the EU- why does the same thing (no commercial reproduction) apply to the Hollywood sign?