Photographing the Eiffel Tower at Night Deemed Illegal

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2005/02/02/eiffel_tower_repossessed.html' target='_blank'>http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2005/02/02/eiffel_tower_repossessed.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"You need look no further than Mickey Mouse in the US, or Elvis in the UK, to understand how copyright, for better or worst, affects the marketplace. But while Disney resorted to legal means to get more life out Mickey, those that oversee the Eiffel Tower came up with something far more clever. The Eiffel Tower's likeness had long since been part of the public domain, when in 2003, it was abruptly repossessed by the city of Paris. That's the year that the SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that. As a result, it's no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission."</i><br /><br />In the same vein, apparently the <a href="http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html">Millenium Park in Chicago is also copyrighted space</a>. Umm, what?! Isn't this taking things too far? Or do you guys agree with these decisions?

[Gary Sheynkman]

Well...living in Chicago...

Yes the security guards or "Segway Nazis" do become a pain if you are using a tripod...but its ok if you are not a Pro...but they cant tell...but if you are a Pro you need a liscene...


I just say this:

"Title 17 section 120 of the US code:

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.-The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. "

AKA...i can take pictures, publish, and sell

come on 270 million of chicago's tax dollars went into that....at least we can photograph it

[Jonathon Watkins]

8O That's crazy!

Is there anything to stop celerities doing the same? I.e. copyrighting thier features and not allowing anyone else to use a photo of themselves without a fee?

[Felix Torres]

8O That's crazy!

Is there anything to stop celerities doing the same? I.e. copyrighting thier features and not allowing anyone else to use a photo of themselves without a fee?

Three words: Taster's Choice coffee.
Didn't you hear the news last week?
A male model belatedly discovered Nestle had been using his image to sell cofee without a full release.
Her sic'ed his lawyer on them.
A jury just awarded him 16 million.
As for celebrities, there are clear limits to how their images can be used for profit. (News and spoofs yes; endorsements, no.)

By the way, the Rock and Roll Hall of fame trademarked the view of its building in Cleveland and have taken photographers to court for selling prints. Basically, you can take pictures of your family in front of the building, but you can't use the image in, say a calendar of Cleveland landmarks without permision.
Long body of law in this arena.

As long as the laws are in place, they are *required* to sue or lose the copyright.