Publishing restrictions on night time Eiffel Tower photos

A more interesting question: What does "publish" mean? If you take a picture of the Eiffel tower at night, and put it on your Web site, is that "publishing"?

No, I disagree. That's a less interesting question.

No, I disagree. That's a less interesting question.

Why is that? Relatively few photographers have their work "published" in the traditional sense of selling it to a media conglomerate that prints a book, magazine, calendar, or whatever. A much larger number of photographers put their work on the Web, which is simple, cheap, and doesn't require any intervention from corporate gatekeepers. I don't think whoever is trying to claim "copyright" on the lighted Eiffel Tower and collect licensing fees has contemplated the existence of mass Web "publishing."

It's similar to what I've seen at state parks in California. If you want to shoot pictures for "commercial" use, you need a million dollar liability bond, plus various fees for guides and the cost of cleaning up after your crew, catering trucks, or whatever. In other words, it's meant to defray the costs (and perhaps make some profit) associated with Hollywood production or the disruption of shooting models for commercials, print ads, or whatever.

If I took some pictures at a state park by myself during normal hours, put them up on my Web site, retained the copyright rather than putting them in the public domain, and charge a license fee if someone want to use the picture, is that "commercial" use contemplated by the regulations? Would I have to go back and get a liability bond, pay whatever permit fees they charge, and pay for a private guide I didn't need or use?

I think this is all interesting because public (and private) entities that set up rules for "commercial" photography almost certainly never contemplated the possibility for an amateur to "publish" images on the Web and charge for them after the fact. How this gets resolved can have a major effect on what people can do with images.

In theory, any photograph we're likely to take will include property that belongs either to a private owner or a government. In theory, we should obtain written permission (and pay whatever fees the property owner might want) for every photograph we take, if there's a possibility that the image would be more widely disseminated than a family photo album. Taking this to extremes, we could easily give up photography and make a hobby out of collecting, cataloguing, and storing permission from property owners. It sounds ridiculous, but it's a distinct possibility that photographers with Web sites could find themselves in legal trouble for failing to obtain permission from private or public property owners.

It's in FRANCE. FRENCH copyright/trademark law will apply. The FRENCH often do things a little "differently". Knowledge of US copyright law is useless in this discussion.

We've been through the topic of US copyright/trademark law at least 1000 times. Every such discussion ends up concluding that the only way to get a definative answer is to actually employ an intellectual property lawyer for each individual case!

I would just say, go ahead and do it anyway and worry about how you're going to publish it later. A couple of key points to consider when deciding about publishing it on the web.

a) How likely is it that the French are going to come across the photo while surfing on the web.
b) How popular would the webpages be?
c) Is the website a commercial site or just a personal homepage with your photos on it?

I had the opportunity to snap some shots in the Alamo last year but didn't for fear of the employees there giving me hard time about it, now I kind of wish I did.

In France there are much stricter privacy laws. You can't even use a picture of someone's house without their consent (I don't know how this would work in practice - I have a picture in my hallway with about 1,000 Paris rooftops in it!).

Take your photo, do whatever you want with it, and don't worry about French intellectual property law.

The FAQ at the official web site of the Eiffel Tower also contains the assertion that images of the tower at night are subject to copyright:  http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/index.html

There is a little bit about this question in this thread: http://www.spinics.net/lists/epson/msg10002.html  Apparently the idea is that the design of the lighting used to illuminate the tower is a work of art in itself?

According to a note at this site: http://www.sclpix.co.uk/tinfo2.htm, it is the local electrical utility in Paris, which lights the tower, that claims a copyright as to the patterns created by the lighting on the tower. Says they have actually sued to enforce their claim! Crazy.

I can almost hear Marlon Brando: "Did you ever hear of the Napoleonic code, Stella?"

The French work week used to be only 37.5 hours (may have dropped even more since...) and they caught someone working longer--so they fined them. Vive la difference....

The main thing I was curious about in my original question was the NIGHT time restrictions, and so Dave answered that. Inreresting little factoid.

France surrenders.

Preston said: Take your photo, do whatever you want with it, and don't worry about French intellectual property law. I worry about this attitude. The rest of the world spent a long time berating China for opting out of the Berne Convention on copyright, and I think the US was one of the leading protagonists. I suppose protecting copyright is OK when it's your own.

Well, I think the French auhorithies inspired from the US. I'm thinking about Lonely Cypress tree from a famous Californian beach... :))

" I suppose protecting copyright is OK when it's your own."

I love that line. One of my biggest problems are photographers who go to the extreme to protect their own copyrights and then ignore other industry's rights.

Yes, the French consider the lighting on the Eiffel tower to be protected by copyright. It sounds extreme but isn't much different than US policy. In about 1950 Madison Square Garden won a major court case giving them and other property owners exclusive rights to images of their property.

The lighting is considered artistic, therefore copyright laws apply.

As far as publishing is concerned, I believe if the photo is used strictly in an artistic, non-commercial manner then the fair use clause would apply - meaning you can use it on your website...but if your website is designed to generate commerce in any form then you must pay the copyright fees.

It does seem really strange. Ok, I've decided the lights in front of my house are art. If you take a picture, you'll have to pay me.

I think it's absurd. But there's nothing to do about it. This kind of reminds me of a tree in California along the coasline (being very vague). Any photograph or likeness of it used commercially is illegal. If it's for non profit, etc you can talk to them and personal use is ok. That seems even weirder since it's a natural object and during the day it most certainly isn't lit up in any artistic way.

If I went and made really ugly pictures of the Eiffel tower at night, do you think theyd care?

I do understand this copyright thing. I used to think it would be nice to go to Paris and enjoy the city for a week or two. But then I ran across some pictures here on photo.net of the Eiffel tower at night, and now, I dunno (sigh)... seen it.

I'm sure the Parisian economy is suffering from the millions of tourists who would have visited Paris, but then saw a nighttime Eiffel picture and thought, oh hell, we've seen what there is to see of Paris, let's do Cleveland instead.

I think the real point is that if you are going to make money taking a picture, you have to respect the copyright. I don't think anyone would bother with you if it were for personal or even non-profit use. Why would they? They couldn't exactly get much money out of you even if they did spend the money and time to take you to court.

It's in FRANCE. FRENCH copyright/trademark law will apply. The FRENCH often do things a little "differently". Knowledge of US copyright law is useless in this discussion.

If you travel to France, take a picture, then publish it in the US, how does French law apply?

.....If you travel to France, take a picture, then publish it in the US, how does French law apply?

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS....to which the US is signatory...

A more interesting question: What does "publish" mean? If you take a picture of the Eiffel tower at night, and put it on your Web site, is that "publishing"?

Although the definitive court case has never been tried, a clear consensus seems to be developing that publishing on the web is "publishing" in the same sense that publishing in print is. The same copyright, fair-use, etc, laws apply. You still need releases when you would need them in print, and so forth.

Take your photo, do whatever you want with it, and don't worry about French intellectual property law.

This is definitely wrong! The US and France are both signatories to the UCC, the Berne Convention, and other agreements agreeing to respect each other's copyright laws.

A better question would be whether the SNTE claim has weight under any recognized copyright or other intellectual property law.

The French won't hand over a wanted murderer to the U.S.. Do you really think the U.S. would hand over a U.S. citizen for taking a picture?

More importantly, would you as an artist really want to try to make money off of taking pictures of others work?

The Eiffel tower / lighting stuff I understand, sort of. It is an original work of art, or at least in the artists opinion.

However, lets say I take a nondescript picture of something in a National Park, and then am able to sell it. Hypothetically is this in violation of the law and National Park copywrite?

Amusing to see some americans telling and suggesting other americans to infridge and disregard other country's copyright laws and then watch them deffend them when it comes to their own... "I mean, it's america... it'll deffend us - people from other countries will see it as plundering but we are just doing and taking what we think its right or ours... "

"Sure, steal it, use it, publish it... I mean, it's only the French - tomorrow, it will be the Germans, the Italians... they won't come to get you... why? you haven't done anything wrong in the US... CNN says so... In fact, take a few MPEGs while in Paris, make a few CDs and sell them to help pay for your trip... What can Vivaldi do from Europe? it's not like it's AOLTW !!"

You people have got to be kidding... Profecional photographers need to understand the logic and the reasons for a copyright law and respect them. They apply to them as well as they apply to YOU.

Rafal, my advice, it seems like it is legal to 'take' the picture, so knock yourself out... take as many pictures as you like - take slides, film, large format, take them upside down! - just don't publish it if you don't want to break the law... (BTW, a web site falls under the 'or electronic means' of the copyright laws).

Show the picture to your frinds, put it in your album or make a slide show out of it... If your intension are to profit from it, then buy the permit (most places will sell a permit and allow you to use tripods to take the picture with the intent to publish, museums, churches etc do this... I'm not sure if this apply here)

Live by copyright, die by copyright. If you accept the fact that lighting of the Eiffel Tower is designed lighting, as opposed to simple illumination, then is a work of art, intellectual property, then it is protected by copyright. Where is this tree everyone keeps alluding too? Is the name of the tree copyrighted? ;-) Everyone seems to be afraid to say it.

A little, but only slightly off the mark, technically speaking you do need a property release to photograph somebody's house. I too have a photo I shot of a bunch of rooftops in Ireland. I better get back there and start collecting property releases.

To clarify the "tree on the beach" that no one will name. It is Peable Beach. It is the tree on the cliff overlooking the Pacific Ocean. The Golf Club and the PGA half placed photo restrictions and have enforced copyright over that particular piece of realestate. I don't know the exact details but I do remember hearing about it on NBC, CNN and ESPN. Bay Hill has similar restictions on its Light House at its course in North Carolina? South Carolina? For more exact details, contact the PGA and the Golf Course Clubs in question, just as done about the Eiffel Tower, an Engineering Masterpiece and work of art, sunshine or lighted at night.

"Pebble Beach is nestled in the Delmonte Forest next to the ocean between Pacific Grove and Carmel. It is often called “The Greatest Meeting of Land, Sea, and Sky in the World.” Its stunning coastline includes: Bird Rock and the Loan Cypress, one of the most photographed landmarks on the California coast. If you can distract your attention from the view you will soon realize that Pebble Beach is also one of the very best golf courses in the world." © 2001 SGH Golf Inc. - 9403 Kenwood Road, Suite C110 - Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-9921 - Tel: 1.800.284.8884

Bah, this being France, they're probably all on strike anyway.

Just an aside -- there are several other places that have claimed copyright on their works (the Flatiron Building, in New York City, for instance). I'm sure in a non-commerical sense these rules are outright ignored by almost everyone, mainly for lack of knowledge, and after all it's a building -- visible from blocks around! ("Those clouds, in the sky -- they look like the Coca Cola logo! Make sure you don't get those in your image!" Where does it all end?)

I have a nice image with the Flatiron Building in the background. It wasn't the principal subject, but takes up a big part of the street behind the subject. Is that photo saleable? I'm not sure, without checking with a copyright lawyer, and getting a release from the property owner.

So my personal direction has become clear: Shoot other things. The world is a big, big, place, and there are wonderful things to see, photograph, and share with the world. All without getting lawyers involved. I find I'm happier this way, and photography still means having fun!

[I've never been to Paris, and I'm sure the Eiffel Tower is amazing. But in a city that size, you are likely to find some other incredible pieces of architecture, crafted by perhaps an undiscovered or little-appreciated architect. Your image of such a structure may be more compelling and dramatic, and enlighten the world to someone else's efforts in building design. Take that road, I say. Let everyone else do what's already been done a zillion times.]

;-) I like what you just said Pierre.

Concerning the night-lights on the tower, it does have the status of art. Those lights have been set for the millenium more than one century after the construction of the tower, so it's a bit more than just a part of the original monument.

In this view, it's then normal to pay for a commercial use. For a non-commercial use, as Fed pointed out, I'd be very surprised if he SNTE asked fees (anyway I just send them an e-mail to directly ask, if there are not on strike they should answer me ;-)).

For the point of the privacy laws, the french law is very strict, it's true that if you use a picture of someone's house you need their consent but ONLY if the house is one of the main subjects of the photo and if it can be recognised in one look : NO you won't be prosecuted by hundred french if you take hundreds of roofs on a photo, neither if you take one square centimeter of someone's wall because you wanted to capture an ant walking on it.

Julien (Paris)

Just to had a few cents to the discussion. Recently there was an issue about photographing a boat that was standind on the public domain (ie it was locate on public property, so freely accessible). The owner of the boat, the one who made it some form of art by painting it, started to claim fees for published photos and postcards. Recently everything went to court, and he just lost the trial and got nothing. This is about making a precedent for the French laws. And a good one.

In short: I'm not a lawyer, but my personnal advice would be to just ignore those claims. If you plan to publish professionnally, consult and attorney. The SNTE is just a company trying to get every penny they can from their cash-cow, even if they are allowed to do that way. What would it be if RATP (Paris Transportation Authority) wanted royalties on each of these nice metro gates that are in the street ? Let's be serious.

nb for author: Insert tounge into cheek.

It may be that the reason for the photo ban is transcendental:

The image captured by a camera is not that of the Tower itself, but of the photons that bounce off (well, re-emit from, to be pedantic) the tower.

During the day these are God's photons, coming from the Sun, and therefore the French Government can make no claim upon them till the day they ressurect the Sun King.

During the night the situation is different -- the photons originate from the electricity and lighting of SNTE, and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the Government of France.

Hence, one can take pictures during the day, but not at night.

Coming from Cleveland, home of the R&R Hall of Fame (r)(c)(tm)(fu) and it's ideas of ownership of its 'Image', the French restriction on taking pictures of Td'E seems sane and reasonable.

With reference to the post by Hubert above recently I read (forget where) that SNCF (the French state railway) will demand a fee if you publish a picture which includes one of their high speed TGV trains.

With regard to the original question if you have photoshop how about replacing the lighting pattern on the Tower with one of your own design.

"Shoot other things. The world is a big, big, place, and there are wonderful things to see, photograph, and share with the world. All without getting lawyers involved."

Of course, the problem with this glib attitude is that as soon as someone finds out you might make a nickle on a picture, they'll copyright that too. It's all about greed, the creation of needless civil litigation (civil courts have been hijacked by the lawyers, BTW, who dream up laws such as these to create money mills for themselves and the courts), and the absurd idea that anything placed for view in a public space should be copyrighted at all. Did Gustave Eiffel warn people that he was going to erect an edifice in public space that would have such restrictions? Did anyone even imagine such restrictions at the time? All of this is johnny-come-lately, "nobody-gets-a-dime-outa-this-but-me" bullsh*t, and photographers are fools for being tolerant of it.

Maybe the issue is redundant, I mean aren't there already enough pictures of the Eiffel Tower for sale? Why try and sell another one?

These copyright discussions go on and on around here. Has anyone ever been sued for TAKING a photograph? Did you lose your case? Did you have to pay damages?

Has anyone ever been sued for taking a photo in a foreign country, then publishing it in a small-press book or website at home?

Does anyone here really believe that if Rafal snaps the Eiffel Tower at night then uploads the photo to the travel section of his personal website that he will be served with legal papers?

The fact that an entity claims a copyright or trademark does not prevent someone from challenging it explicitly (in court) or implicitly (by ignoring it). You can't legally prevent somone from taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night. Why would a photographer refrain from taking a picture because of an FAQ on a website?

Jon Curtis: <i>The French won't hand over a wanted murderer to the U.S.. Do you really think the U.S. would hand over a U.S. citizen for taking a picture?</i><p>

Not how it works, Jon. They can come over, sue you in the federal court for the district in which you are domiciled, and if they win, they get their specific damages plus costs -- and that includes the Concorde they flew in on.

How many of us photogs make enough for them to bother trying to take it from us anyway?

After wasting several precious minutes of my rapidly expiring lifetime reading these posts, may I just repeat a quote I heard recently on one of those ad nauseum 24 hour newschannel interview shows: "I certainly wouldn't want to be confused with someone who gives a rat's ass what the French think."

Can anyone attempt to put this into dollars and cents? How many Euros or % does France want for published/commercial Eiffel Tower photos? How much are permits?

First of all, SNTE is NOT the French governement and shall not be confused with France. SNTE is just a private company that has the right to use Eiffel Tower for commercial purpose, including renting it, allowing visitors, etc. at the expense of paying all the required expense to have this monument still alive. In reality the contract is probably a little more complex than that, but this does not matter really more.

The problem is that they claim the right to ask for fee for night pictures of the Eiffel Tower. To Bob: it is not because someone claim the right to do something that he has the right to. This is what law is for, and copyright laws are slightly the same as in the US. I'd be interested what would be the result if they brought the case to court. I'm sure plain-tiff would be rejected, even with appeal, as a similar case as already been brought to court. But again, I'm not a lawyer.

Oh and I'm retaining myself to perform US/Canada-bashing given how much France-bashing was put in that thread.

Just change the site name to xenophobia.net and be done with it.

"They can come over, sue you in the federal court for the district in which you are domiciled, and if they win, they get their specific damages plus costs -- and that includes the Concorde they flew in on."

Exactly. It's an all-expenses-paid perk trip to the U.S. of A. for a SNTE rep and a couple of lawyers. They aren't interested in the $50.00 bucks you got for the sale of a postcard image. It's the other benefits that accrue from generating as much civil litigation as possible. U.S. lawyers do it all the time. Civil law has largely been perverted into a way to move massive amounts of money from the populace to what is rapidly becomeing lawyer-class plutocracy. "You're on a treadmill, Bub, and we like it." The amazing thing is that the public is too dim to figure this out and demand court reform.

In one of my previous post I said I sent an e-mail to directly ask to SNTE if as a non-professional I could use night time pnotos of the Tower on my non-commercial web site.

Here what they (approximatively) answer :" We have received your demand to use photos on your non-commercial and personnal website ...bla bla bla... We insist that The Eiffel Tower illuminated is considered as a brand (by the French National Industrial Property under the # 1379547) and so cannot be used.

BUT in the area of you project (non-commercial, personnal etc...) we allow you to use it if you include on the photos the mention "Eclairage de la Tour Eiffel - Copyright Société Nouvelle d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel – Conception Pierre Bideau""

Well... What to say about that ?

- People are not as much interested in money than we could think (and they are efficient !!!)

- Action is better than long debates (chinese saying... well at least french ;-))

- It's interesting to see how much the debate can become more general and can deviate to a multi-national incomprehension - so maybe the SNTE's answer is not really the end point of the discussion...

- French are sometimes not in strike (usually during their vacations :-)

So if you want to ask the permission to SNTE just ask them at "commercial@toureiffel.fr" and explain your case.

Cheers,

I couldn't agree more with you all: ignore those jolly rotten cheating skiving frogs and come over here to London instead.

We'll rob you rotten too: but at least you can understand us while we're doing it.

The flatiron and the lone cypress are NOT protected by copyright, they're protected by trademark. Specifically in the U.S. architectural copyright DOES NOT protect the building from photography. It sounds like France may have the same arrangement since they don't care about daytime photos.

In any event, personal web site usage gets you to a point you often reach in photography--is it strictly legal? No. Is there a chance in a million anyone is going to bother you? No. But use it in a travel agency ad and you may well find a French lawyer at your door.

What if someone cuts a models hair and then a picture of that model is published, the stylist could claim that was their work of art. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

When was the lighting scheme copyrighted & when does this copyright protection expire? Copyright does need to be respected, but it does not last forever.

Copyright, trademark, and patent laws exist to encourage the creation and exchange of intellectual works which benefit the public. They are abused when their use discourages the creation and exchange of said works.

A copyright which allows someone to sell their romance novel is beneficial. Without that protection they may never have invested the time and effort to create it for public consumption. However, a copyright which prevents everyone else from ever publishing their own romance novels so that one person can monopolize the market is abusive.

I'm hard pressed to understand how the SNTE claim is beneficial to or applicable in the photography market. Their property is a unique architectual lighting design. Allowing other buildings to use the same design might lower the value of the SNTE property, and therefore reduce their incentive to offer the design to the public or create further unique designs.

But their property is not a photograph or an image, and they do not sell said property in those markets. Therefore, how do published photographs reduce their property value or their incentive to offer it in any way? As one person joked, are people not going to Paris because they've seen night time shots of the Eiffel tower? Are said photographs harming the profits of SNTE such that they intend to turn off the lights?

SNTE may very well claim that their unique architectual design some how deserves protection in the completely unrelated public market of photography. And commercial photographers may very well obey it as the path of least resistance. And the best advice to you may very well be to contact a lawyer to determine your rights.

Never the less, to me it is clearly a violation of the original intent and spirit of copyright law. I do not know how their claim manages to stand, except perhaps as a quirk of the French legal system.

It is as if someone created a software program, then claimed nobody could photograph the disk that the software was stored on. It's simply a flawed claim.

Sorry for entering this discussion so late, but I have a question related to this discussion.

If I were a painter and I painted an image of the Eiffel Tower at night, would the SNTE claim that it was copyright infringment? Or similarly, would any US landmark owner claim the same? If so, at what level of abstraction of the original object does it become my art and not theirs? If it is ok to publish an abstract painting of the Eiffle Tower at night then is must also be ok to publish a crystal clear photograph also.

I (along with many others) view photography as art, not merely a representation of reality and therefore by simply composing the shot I have created an image that is entirly mine. Of course I am not speaking about laws, only what is right. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is just.

My understanding of American copyright law is that there is a difference between the object of the and the art itself. One person can photograph a landscape, but would not be able to prevent another photographer or painter from taking a picture or painting that same landscape. However, if one were to photograph a painting of a landscape, the painter would be able to enforce her copyright in the painting to the extent that the photographer attempted to sell reproduced pictures of the painting as authorized reprints.

The French appear to have a similar law evidenced by the fact party claiming copyright protection is claiming that the lighting is the art itself. But this probably wouldn't fly in the United States or France unless one were to sell the photographs as a reproduction of the art, which one would probably not do anyway.

I want to submit a thought here -- there has ben a lot of discusion about the "lights" being "art" -- while the tower is somehow not. I completely dispute this idea. What could possibly be less significant about a building, structure, or other object than the lights that adorn it...? It seems the difference must be that they feel the have a right to a copyright or right to enforce it -- when it's lighted, while making a claim that the eiffel tower is protected -- could be more difficult.