4 ms·

Classic urban legend. > Views of the Eiffel Tower taken by private individuals for private use do not require prior agreement. However, professionals must cont

by nmc 8y ago

Classic urban legend. > Views of the Eiffel Tower taken by private individuals for private use do not require prior agreement. However, professionals must contact our teams, who will inform them of the conditions of use governing images. https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel-tower https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel... EDIT: Just to be clear: copyright DOES NOT PREVENT ANYONE from PHOTOGRAPHING the tower at night. It only prevents you from profiting from a photograph that you took of the illuminated tower (and then only if the tower is the main feature of the photograph) without a license agreement from the copyright holder. This is not supporting either the principle or the consequences of copyright, simply debunking the idea that photographing the tower at night is illegal.

tyingq 8y ago
That is different, but doesn't seem less silly.
raverbashing 8y ago
Adding photo/filming conditions to places of relevance (even natural places) seem to be common (though a lot of times it related to authorization to be in the place doing the work)
Mindwipe 8y ago
That doesn't really contradict the article. Paris city council does retain the copyright, they just choose not to enforce it and give a de-facto implied license in certain specific cases.
seba_dos1 8y ago
So what? It doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
- 14 8y ago
  I have to agree. These are the type of stupid laws I read that completely turns me off of a country. What other ridiculous laws would I have to endure if I were to visit?
  - JeanMarcS 8y ago
    Every countries have stupid laws by the way https://www.stupidlaws.com/ https://www.stupidlaws.com/
    - kiliancs 8y ago
      Without a source, how can I tell which ones are real?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
logicallee 8y ago
Why do you say "urban legend"? Another paragraph from your link says, "The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc." This seems to fully justify the headline and opening sentence.
b1r6 8y ago
That's no less ridiculous. If it's a public object, I should always be able to take a picture of it and profit off of it. Doesn't matter if I'm a little guy or Getty Images.

by nmc 8y ago

tyingq 8y ago

That is different, but doesn't seem less silly.

raverbashing 8y ago

Adding photo/filming conditions to places of relevance (even natural places) seem to be common (though a lot of times it related to authorization to be in the place doing the work)

Mindwipe 8y ago

That doesn't really contradict the article. Paris city council does retain the copyright, they just choose not to enforce it and give a de-facto implied license in certain specific cases.

seba_dos1 8y ago

So what? It doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

14 8y ago
I have to agree. These are the type of stupid laws I read that completely turns me off of a country. What other ridiculous laws would I have to endure if I were to visit?
- JeanMarcS 8y ago
  Every countries have stupid laws by the way https://www.stupidlaws.com/ https://www.stupidlaws.com/
  - kiliancs 8y ago
    Without a source, how can I tell which ones are real?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

logicallee 8y ago

Why do you say "urban legend"? Another paragraph from your link says, "The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc." This seems to fully justify the headline and opening sentence.

b1r6 8y ago

That's no less ridiculous. If it's a public object, I should always be able to take a picture of it and profit off of it. Doesn't matter if I'm a little guy or Getty Images.