Eiffel Tower's Lighting is Copyright protected

http://www.foxnews.com …=features&intcm​p=features

Take down your illegal pictures now or face the wrath of the Parisian courts!

Interesting to note the other countries mentioned here that prohibit selling images of public buildings (Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia).

isn't the Empire State Building trademarked or copyrighted or something too? Read something along those lines a long time ago, but might remember wrong

Like them see them try and enforce that.

It's the lighting on the Eiffel tower that's copyrighted.. You can sell daytime pics of it, but you need a release for night images. There are lots of places where these copyrights apply. Even Durdle Door on the Jurassic coast, UK. is copyrighted. Although I didn't see the signs last time I went, so that may have been updated..!?!

beano wrote in post #17270407
Even Durdle Door on the Jurassic coast, UK. is copyrighted. Although I didn't see the signs last time I went, so that may have been updated..!?!

More likely tossed in the bin because it is impossible to copyright a natural phenomena. Copyright applies only to work of human creativity. Durdle door was created by natural erosion and as such can't be copyrighted.

That article is ridiculous. Taking photos of the Eiffel tower at night time is fine. And in practice, no one is going to do anything about sharing pictures either. Selling those pictures or using them in a commercial manner without prior permission is what could, potentially, result in action being taken.

Sirrith wrote in post #17271030
That article is ridiculous. Taking photos of the Eiffel tower at night time is fine. And in practice, no one is going to do anything about sharing pictures either. Selling those pictures or using them in a commercial manner without prior permission is what could, potentially, result in action being taken.

I didn't bother reading the article. if I remember rightly, the copyright covers the publishing of the images, as it's about adversely affecting tourism. I think it only really covers print media (I know alamy etc require a release..), but I'm not a 100% sure of that!?!

This has to be a joke. Seeing as how the source is fox news I'm gonna hope it is.

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …ges-Facebook-ILLEGAL.html

does make you wonder, the article says in UK we can photograph public buildings and use - but the article refers to the lighting as being an Artwork and as such is copyrighted. Following on with this philosophy wouldn't mean that photographing the Poppies at Tower of London and sharing on social media etc is a breach of copyright since the poppies are described as an artwork/sculpture ?

A list of buildings and objects that may cause problems photographically:

http://www.pacaoffice.​org …rces/specialRel​eases.html

but really this comes down to go ahead and shoot em, just dont sell em or use them for profit or publication. Snap away on vacation.

birderman wrote in post #17290005
does make you wonder, the article says in UK we can photograph public buildings and use - but the article refers to the lighting as being an Artwork and as such is copyrighted. Following on with this philosophy wouldn't mean that photographing the Poppies at Tower of London and sharing on social media etc is a breach of copyright since the poppies are described as an artwork/sculpture ?

Sharing on social media, and publishing aren't the same thing.

If you share it on a business page on social media then it could be seen as promotional. I am not an expert in copyright law but there could be a case if that were the case.

I took tons of photos of it along with hundreds of other tourists. Police were all over & nobody said a word.