53 ms·

Unfortunately that is the case. There are certain buildings in the US, or the Eifel Tower in Paris at night, you are not allowed to reproduce without obtaining

Unfortunately that is the case. There are certain buildings in the US, or the Eifel Tower in Paris at night, you are not allowed to reproduce without obtaining a license from the according copyright/trademark holder. Here is a comprehensive list with their restrictions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-r...

tephra 6y ago
If I recall correctly the issue with the Eiffel Tower at night is that they claim (and I assume courts have agreed unfortunately) that the lighting fixtures are copyrightable?
- convery 6y ago
  I mean, I can see a case for copyrighting such a setup as an art-piece. Although it's still silly if used for anything other than discouraging others from making money off it (e.g. selling photos).
  - feanaro 6y ago
    > I mean, I can see a case for copyrighting such a setup as an art-piece. I must admit I don't. I cannot bring myself to see the Eiffel tower being copyrighted at night as anything but absurd, even for selling photos. Not everything needs to be profitable or have a price tag. I think we should agree upfront as a society that you shouldn't expect to make money from photos of the exterior of your public building.
    - rozab 6y ago
      I just don't understand how you can restrict photography of something that's in the public view. I'd expect that while most public sculptures etc are copyrighted, this restricts reproductions of the sculptures themselves, not images of them. The creative work here is the lighting system, and I don't feel an image of that actually copies that.
- KMag 6y ago
  So if someone monkeys with the lighting fixtures at night, such that they weren't in their copyrighted configuration... I am clearly not a lawyer.
  - vegetablepotpie 6y ago
    If someone monkeyed with the lighting fixtures, they would be creating a derivative work of the fixtures and if they do it without a license from the copyright holder, they would be violating the copyright.
- Igelau 6y ago
  It was actually used for advertising a long time ago. Big old "CITROËN" on it. Really gaudy, but a trademark nonetheless, so it does put us into some sort of IP territory.
- nonick 6y ago
  I guess it's OK if I take a picture during daytime and then alter it digitally to look as if it was taken at night.
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    if it's really an issue of copyright (I don't know this myself but just going with the theory) then it would probably depend on how closely your digital alterations match the actual lighting. If you did it to match/copy the copyrighted lighting, by looking at the actual lighting (in person with your laptop, from a picture, from memory), it would violate copyright just as much. If I re-type the words of a copyrighted text, it doesn't mean I haven't violated copyright.
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      > If I re-type the words of a copyrighted text, it doesn't mean I haven't violated copyright. Copyrights are hard. Even if you look at public domain works like Sherlock Holmes, whose original stories are in the public domain, you can run into issues by giving him personality traits that are associated with derivative works that are still under copyright.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    You can even use pictures taken at night, just not during the light show that happens every hour or whatever
- conjectures 6y ago
  IP is one of those areas where programmers like to imagine the law is a function definition which provides clear answers. And aside from obvious stuff like selling bootleg copies of a movie - it doesn't. Whether the pattern of light hitting a building is copyrightable is likely to be an under-explored area of case law. E.g. in the UK it would probably have to be a work of 'artistic craftsmanship' which is not defined in the statute. But the Eiffel tower is in France. So now you have two slightly differing sets of copyright law. In the end many IP cases come down to bluffing because the actual class of question has never been settled by a judge. On the other hand you have other cases like Banksy today loosing a case on trademarking one of his paintings. Which was dumb because he'd have got further with copyright infringement.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    I do feel like there are situations where you're creating artwork as a public good, and the artist should lose copyrights in exchange for the notoriety/impact/visibility associated with the project. Things like massive buildings, lighting the Eiffle tower, or creating Happy Birthday should fall under that. It might sound unfair, but as an artist, creating a iconic piece of art that will be around for generations should really be worth more than money. Perhaps governments around the world could set up a fund to compensate/honor artists who achieve this.
    - kjakm 6y ago
      This sounds like you’re saying if you’re an artist, and you do a really good job, you shouldn’t get paid and should lose the rights to your work. That’s quite a strange concept.
      - mywittyname 6y ago
        A) I literally mentioned compensation in my post. B) Lots of people find the current rules to be unfair. An enterprising fellow could build a massive structure in NYC and claim royalty rights over any photograph which may contain it. You might be a-okay with that, but I take it to the extreme and think about what would happen if every building owner in NYC asserted copyrights over images of their building. Then every photo taken in the city would be subject to royalty/licensing requirements. YouTube's content scanners would automatically flag any video with shots of the city, etc.
- pwned1 6y ago
  There is some French law on works of art and photos of them being prohibited. I once posted a picture of a World War I memorial at Verdun to wikipedia and it was removed for violating said French law.
Udik 6y ago
I might understand the point if what you were trying to sell was a picture of the tower- that is, if the image of tower itself were the reason people are paying for something. If it's just part of a crowded the background, though, as in this case, it doesn't make sense. You can't put in the sky an object visible from everywhere and then ask people to pay (or even just ask permission) to use pictures that include it.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  It becomes more complex if you are an Instagram influencer and share yourself with Eiffel tower on the background - do you need to share loyalties and how much of it?
  - Udik 6y ago
    I wonder- if I need to pay royalties to share a picture including a building, can I sue the owners of the building for popping up in my pictures? If I am an instagram influencer, can I ask owners of buildings to pay me for the space they occupy in my pictures?
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      not unless they see you getting ready to take the picture and they jump in and build it in the background just as you snap your selfie.
    - PinguTS 6y ago
      The thing is, yes you can try to ask the owners. But what do you do, when they refuse? Because it is not in the owners interest, it is in yours interest. The thing with the influencer is, that s/he does that for commercial purposes. The list published by Adobe give you a hint what is allowed and what not. I don't know if the list is a complete list and I didn't verified the details. But it gives you something.
      - Udik 6y ago
kelnage 6y ago
The French and wider EU rules around this (often referred to as "freedom of panorama", discussed here [1]) are actually quite complex. From my time contributing to Wikipedia, I've seen a number of cases of photos on articles being removed due to it. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
LanceH 6y ago
We need to get away from the idea that taking a picture of something is reproducing it. Or that having a trademark in the background of something is implying an endorsement and necessitates payment.
- asalahli 6y ago
  > We need to get away from the idea that taking a picture of something is reproducing it. What about taking a picture of a copyrighted text?
  - mantap 6y ago
    The photo contains everything needed to reproduce the text. Whereas for a building a photo just captures one tiny perspective of it.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    If you take a picture of enough of the text, you've actually reproduced the work under copyright. No amount of pictures of a building will reproduce it. Also, if they want to claim ownership of the recording of something clearly visible in public, they should take responsibility and make payment for everyone that views it against their will. Yea, that latter half of that sounds ridiculous. The first half should as well.
afpx 6y ago
That's just a list of what Adobe restricts, not what is generally restricted. Each jurisdiction is different, but Adobe tries to appease all of them which unfortunately defaults to being restrictive.

tephra 6y ago

If I recall correctly the issue with the Eiffel Tower at night is that they claim (and I assume courts have agreed unfortunately) that the lighting fixtures are copyrightable?

convery 6y ago
I mean, I can see a case for copyrighting such a setup as an art-piece. Although it's still silly if used for anything other than discouraging others from making money off it (e.g. selling photos).
- feanaro 6y ago
  > I mean, I can see a case for copyrighting such a setup as an art-piece. I must admit I don't. I cannot bring myself to see the Eiffel tower being copyrighted at night as anything but absurd, even for selling photos. Not everything needs to be profitable or have a price tag. I think we should agree upfront as a society that you shouldn't expect to make money from photos of the exterior of your public building.
  - rozab 6y ago
    I just don't understand how you can restrict photography of something that's in the public view. I'd expect that while most public sculptures etc are copyrighted, this restricts reproductions of the sculptures themselves, not images of them. The creative work here is the lighting system, and I don't feel an image of that actually copies that.
KMag 6y ago
So if someone monkeys with the lighting fixtures at night, such that they weren't in their copyrighted configuration... I am clearly not a lawyer.
- vegetablepotpie 6y ago
  If someone monkeyed with the lighting fixtures, they would be creating a derivative work of the fixtures and if they do it without a license from the copyright holder, they would be violating the copyright.
Igelau 6y ago
It was actually used for advertising a long time ago. Big old "CITROËN" on it. Really gaudy, but a trademark nonetheless, so it does put us into some sort of IP territory.
nonick 6y ago
I guess it's OK if I take a picture during daytime and then alter it digitally to look as if it was taken at night.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  if it's really an issue of copyright (I don't know this myself but just going with the theory) then it would probably depend on how closely your digital alterations match the actual lighting. If you did it to match/copy the copyrighted lighting, by looking at the actual lighting (in person with your laptop, from a picture, from memory), it would violate copyright just as much. If I re-type the words of a copyrighted text, it doesn't mean I haven't violated copyright.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    > If I re-type the words of a copyrighted text, it doesn't mean I haven't violated copyright. Copyrights are hard. Even if you look at public domain works like Sherlock Holmes, whose original stories are in the public domain, you can run into issues by giving him personality traits that are associated with derivative works that are still under copyright.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  You can even use pictures taken at night, just not during the light show that happens every hour or whatever
conjectures 6y ago
IP is one of those areas where programmers like to imagine the law is a function definition which provides clear answers. And aside from obvious stuff like selling bootleg copies of a movie - it doesn't. Whether the pattern of light hitting a building is copyrightable is likely to be an under-explored area of case law. E.g. in the UK it would probably have to be a work of 'artistic craftsmanship' which is not defined in the statute. But the Eiffel tower is in France. So now you have two slightly differing sets of copyright law. In the end many IP cases come down to bluffing because the actual class of question has never been settled by a judge. On the other hand you have other cases like Banksy today loosing a case on trademarking one of his paintings. Which was dumb because he'd have got further with copyright infringement.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  I do feel like there are situations where you're creating artwork as a public good, and the artist should lose copyrights in exchange for the notoriety/impact/visibility associated with the project. Things like massive buildings, lighting the Eiffle tower, or creating Happy Birthday should fall under that. It might sound unfair, but as an artist, creating a iconic piece of art that will be around for generations should really be worth more than money. Perhaps governments around the world could set up a fund to compensate/honor artists who achieve this.
  - kjakm 6y ago
    This sounds like you’re saying if you’re an artist, and you do a really good job, you shouldn’t get paid and should lose the rights to your work. That’s quite a strange concept.
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      A) I literally mentioned compensation in my post. B) Lots of people find the current rules to be unfair. An enterprising fellow could build a massive structure in NYC and claim royalty rights over any photograph which may contain it. You might be a-okay with that, but I take it to the extreme and think about what would happen if every building owner in NYC asserted copyrights over images of their building. Then every photo taken in the city would be subject to royalty/licensing requirements. YouTube's content scanners would automatically flag any video with shots of the city, etc.
pwned1 6y ago
There is some French law on works of art and photos of them being prohibited. I once posted a picture of a World War I memorial at Verdun to wikipedia and it was removed for violating said French law.

Udik 6y ago

I might understand the point if what you were trying to sell was a picture of the tower- that is, if the image of tower itself were the reason people are paying for something. If it's just part of a crowded the background, though, as in this case, it doesn't make sense. You can't put in the sky an object visible from everywhere and then ask people to pay (or even just ask permission) to use pictures that include it.

heavenlyblue 6y ago
It becomes more complex if you are an Instagram influencer and share yourself with Eiffel tower on the background - do you need to share loyalties and how much of it?
- Udik 6y ago
  I wonder- if I need to pay royalties to share a picture including a building, can I sue the owners of the building for popping up in my pictures? If I am an instagram influencer, can I ask owners of buildings to pay me for the space they occupy in my pictures?
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    not unless they see you getting ready to take the picture and they jump in and build it in the background just as you snap your selfie.
  - PinguTS 6y ago
    The thing is, yes you can try to ask the owners. But what do you do, when they refuse? Because it is not in the owners interest, it is in yours interest. The thing with the influencer is, that s/he does that for commercial purposes. The list published by Adobe give you a hint what is allowed and what not. I don't know if the list is a complete list and I didn't verified the details. But it gives you something.
    - Udik 6y ago

kelnage 6y ago

The French and wider EU rules around this (often referred to as "freedom of panorama", discussed here [1]) are actually quite complex. From my time contributing to Wikipedia, I've seen a number of cases of photos on articles being removed due to it. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

LanceH 6y ago

We need to get away from the idea that taking a picture of something is reproducing it. Or that having a trademark in the background of something is implying an endorsement and necessitates payment.

asalahli 6y ago
> We need to get away from the idea that taking a picture of something is reproducing it. What about taking a picture of a copyrighted text?
- mantap 6y ago
  The photo contains everything needed to reproduce the text. Whereas for a building a photo just captures one tiny perspective of it.
- LanceH 6y ago
  If you take a picture of enough of the text, you've actually reproduced the work under copyright. No amount of pictures of a building will reproduce it. Also, if they want to claim ownership of the recording of something clearly visible in public, they should take responsibility and make payment for everyone that views it against their will. Yea, that latter half of that sounds ridiculous. The first half should as well.

afpx 6y ago

That's just a list of what Adobe restricts, not what is generally restricted. Each jurisdiction is different, but Adobe tries to appease all of them which unfortunately defaults to being restrictive.