| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2005 01:08:22 PM · #1 |
Apparently, it is now illegal to publish shots of the Eiffel Tower at night, as Paris has copyrighted it. As if they hadn't upset enough photographers by making candids almost impossible to publish. Let's hope this doesn't catch on!
Oops, forgot the link:
//blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2005/02/02/eiffel_tower_repossessed.html
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 13:08:37. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:33:50 PM · #2 |
Yeah, I heard it was the light pattern or something like that. There was a similar thread a while back started by Guarawa that had a list of nono pics. I think it's complete bullcrap myself. It's another way of the capitolist world. 'If I can't make money, no one should'.
Joe
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:39:18 PM · #3 |
As if the eiffel 'copyright' wasn't bad enough, did you read the part of the blog about the lone cypress tree at pebble beach being copyrighted? how can someone possibly copyright a tree?
someone posed a good question. if you took a picture of the paris skyline with the eiffel in it, would that count as copyright infringement? |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:41:06 PM · #4 |
Well, Calvin Klein copyrighted Eternity...it's all been downhill from there!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:44:51 PM · #5 |
GeneralE, mentioned this back in the Landmark challenge here's a link that he provided, check it out. Interesting...
PACA Special Releases List
As a service, PACA members have compiled a list of properties and objects that may cause problems if shown photographically.
//www.stockindustry.org/resources/specialReleases.html
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:48:25 PM · #6 |
well, according to that list I've already violated eight copyrights. :/
"The Louvre & IM Pei's Pyramid" ...oops. old and new challenge winners. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:50:37 PM · #7 |
| So itsimring is right now doing something illegal by making his print of Le Louvre available? I can't believe this... |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:29:13 PM · #8 |
Harley Davidson submitted a patent application for the SOUND their bikes make.
Not sure if they got it approved or not, but still...
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:36:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Harley Davidson submitted a patent application for the SOUND their bikes make.
Not sure if they got it approved or not, but still... |
Actually, they trademarked the sound. Quite a bit different to copyrighting or patenting it.
And yes - it is possible - think of the 4 note 'Intel' brand sound - it is trademarked as well. Though Harley gave up on their attempt to trademark an engine noise because it wasn't distinctive enough... |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:11:36 PM · #10 |
And apparently, BMW has a patent on the mechanism which results in the heavy sound of their car doors closing.
Sure, this all sounds silly...but there are perfect explanations for all of these trademarks and copyrights. I have no problem with there being a copyright on the lighting design of the eiffel tower. Nobody is stopped from photographing it, just from making money off of publishing it.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:12:26 PM · #11 |
Question: if I were to post Muckpond's picture like this...
...which of us would get sued? I think they can 'baisez nos derrieres', to use the correct legal parlance.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:14:30 PM · #12 |
Re: the Lone Cypress on 17-mile drive on the Monterey peninsula; that entire area is privately held by a corporation, and you have to pass by a gatehouse and pay a fee to use the road. The ticket states that images made on this property may not be commerically used. The reason theyhave done it is because many, many advertisers were using this famous landmark, which they own, as a part of their advertising campaigns. Car companies, for example, would pay big bucks to come in and shoot elaborate commercials there, and so forth. When digital imaging became so sophisticated, it became possible to "appropriate" the tree without paying the price of using it.
Understandably, the corporation (not to mention the advertisers who paid them for the use of the landmark) was not happy about this, as it diluted the value of the location in a very real sense. They do not care one whit if a landscape photographer shoots the tree and sells prints as art; all they care about is the "commercial" usage of the image. I can't say I disagree with them. How would you feel if you owned, say, a fantastic bonsai tree, and one day one of your guests took some pictures of it, then later one of these pictures showed up as a backdrop image for a new, high-priced perfume. Your guest was paid, let's say, $25,000 for the rights to the image, and you didn't get a penny yourself?
The Eiffel Tower, though? Sheesh.... They SAY they want to protect the integrity of the landmark, keep people from using it as (let's say) a jewel-box case image for the DVD of "She-Men in Gay Paree", and I guess that's understandable if you have pride in your landmark, but... gee whiz...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:34:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by bpickard:
Question: if I were to post Muckpond's picture like this...
...which of us would get sued? I think they can 'baisez nos derrieres', to use the correct legal parlance. |
Neither of you, because you aren't selling it when you post it like that nor are you using it to sell something else. Also, if the copyrighted material is not clearly the main subject or one of the most important elements of the photo, you aren't doing anything wrong either.
So when you would shoot the Paris city centre from the air or another high building at night and the Eiffel tower is in that shot but only as one of all the elements at that area, you can sell it without violating copyrights.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:42:58 PM · #14 |
| Trump owns "Your fired". It is nice to know that my employer will have to pay him money to let me go. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:18:25 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bpickard:
I think they can 'baisez nos derrieres', to use the correct legal parlance. |
I don't speake French, but I know enough to say that I completely agree!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:18:37 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Trump owns "Your fired". |
Trump owns my fired?
Oh, you mean "you're fired"!
;0)
*today, i am jackass*
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 16:18:50.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:31:50 PM · #17 |
In many of the palaces in Europe, tourists are forbidden from taking photographs of the rooms, decor, pieces within. This has two purposes. Firstly, the flashes from cameras, over the decades, can fade original fabrics and wallpapers, of which are of quite impressive quality and usually belonged to some famous monarch. Secondly, the money brought in from tours and souvenier sales is often used to upkeep the belongings. Therefore, special sactioned photographs, postcards, and books that conatin images of the lush interiors are sold for the benefit of the continuation of the site. When people take their own pictures of the interiors, two things happen: the original items are discolored and ruined over time, and the money that would have been made from the sales of sovenier pictures is lost, and therefore money used for upkeep is lost, resulting in a lost wonder.
I can understand rules in the above context. HOWEVER, the Eiffel Tower at night? Taking pictures of that leads to no sort of depriciation in the structure whatsoever. The view of the Eiffel Tower is not privatly owned by anyone, is it? I mean, you don't have to pay an owner to get a glimpse of it at any time of day (going up in it is another story, but I'm discussing a general view). Does Venice own a copyright on pictues of the Bridge of Sighs, or of gonalas on the Main Canal? It's perposterous. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:36:27 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Trump owns "Your fired". |
Trump owns my fired?
Oh, you mean "you're fired"!
;0)
*today, i am jackass* |
oh yeah. I done learned English real good. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:43:55 PM · #19 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 08:23:10 AM EDT.
