6 ms·

> It becomes even stranger in some cases. For example, you can share a photo of the Eiffel Tower because of its age – but only if it is taken during the day. If

by aikah 11y ago

> It becomes even stranger in some cases. For example, you can share a photo of the Eiffel Tower because of its age – but only if it is taken during the day. If the photo is at night, the lighting is considered a separate installation and falls foul of Freedom of Panorama. Wtf? what is the justification for this?

macjohnmcc 11y ago
I read somewhere that it's because of the lights on the tower being done more recently.
- mjn 11y ago
  Yes, artistic lighting installations can be copyrightable, and that on the Eiffel Tower is newer than the tower. Somewhat similar situation to a mural being painted on an old building, or a new statue being installed on its facade. Without freedom of panorama, in that case you could photograph the building, but only if you're careful to crop out the mural/statue from the photo.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Which leaves a loophole then, tourist locations can prevent photography from including it by adding a copyrightable work to a building. Also can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by Google's streetview photographers (and copied and recopied many times over by Google). Based on such a draconian interpretation of copyright law I imagine a large company could successfully sue Google with this (eg if new owners were asset stripping anyway and so didn't need to use Google for advertising/location services).
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Also can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by Google's streetview photographers On that note: http://streetghosts.net/ http://streetghosts.net/
      - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
        Love it, street art using images of blurred out people from Google's Streetview pasted in the real life locations where the original images were captured.
    - mjn 11y ago
      Yes, that's why freedom of panorama is an exception to copyright in many jurisdictions, because otherwise taking photos of public places becomes a minefield of copyrightable stuff strewn everywhere.
  - revscat 11y ago
    > Yes, artistic lighting installations can be copyrightable, That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      It's not asinine. Being able to copyright creative lighting installations seems reasonable: what if someone copies your design? But it's not reasonable to charge anyone who takes a photo of it.
      - chinathrow 11y ago
        Yeah but come on... that sounds so ridiciouls.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        I think the asinine part is copyright transferring to another medium. Its one thing to copyright the lighting installation (which is a fine thing, more power to you), but another thing to now own copyright a photo that happens to have said installation in it.
        icebraining 11y ago
        What if I take a high quality picture of a painting? What about a video of a photograph? What about a film based on a book?
        protomyth 11y ago
        I think we are talking about a public installation like a sculpture, building, etc. No photograph, book, or film is an actual copy; but your examples are all basically trying to make a copy that can function like the original.
        bostonpete 11y ago
        Couldn't a series of photos be composited to function like an original sculpture? E.g. a photosphere or VR-like presentation that allows the viewer to experience the sculpture from different angles, perhaps even in 3D?
- IshKebab 11y ago
  Weird, I read that too!
NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
> Wtf? what is the justification for this? It's called a "money grab". Wouldn't you love to be able to tax photographers for taking pictures of public places too? I mean, it's not as if there will be no pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night, that'd be silly. They'll just be able to restrict those photos to those willing to pay licensing fees. But this is Europe we're talking about... the same people who think the label "cheddar cheese" should be copyrightable.
- arethuza 11y ago
  I think you might mean a "protected designation of origin" or a "protected geographical indication" rather than "copyright" - apparently "cheddar cheese" has no such protection although "Orkney Cheddar Cheese" does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_cheese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_cheese This actually seems reasonable to me, perhaps because I am European and also rather fond of good cheese!
  - seanp2k2 11y ago
    This is more generally known as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation Another example is champagne. Sparkling wine from other regions is not technically champagne. However, limiting the ability of the public to photograph things outdoors doesn't seem quite comparable. If a real estate company owned a significant number of buildings in a downtown area, could they then copyright the skyline of a city as the creative work of their collective architectural firms? If you made a large installation visible from space (say, the Palm Islands in Dubai), could you claim copyright on images of Earth with high enough detail to make out your work? Basically, what's the limit on this, because it seems like it has a pretty high ceiling for ridiculousness.
    - germanier 11y ago
      > If a real estate company owned a significant number of buildings in a downtown area, could they then copyright the skyline of a city as the creative work of their collective architectural firms? Usually copyright belongs to the architect and can't be transferred to anyone in Europe. > If you made a large installation visible from space (say, the Palm Islands in Dubai), could you claim copyright on images of Earth with high enough detail to make out your work? I'm pretty sure that's already the case in many jurisdictions, including Germany where there is freedom of panorama. That only applies for images taken without technical assistance to get the view and using a satellite to take the picture is certainly technical assistance (as is a ladder btw.).

by aikah 11y ago

macjohnmcc 11y ago

I read somewhere that it's because of the lights on the tower being done more recently.

mjn 11y ago
Yes, artistic lighting installations can be copyrightable, and that on the Eiffel Tower is newer than the tower. Somewhat similar situation to a mural being painted on an old building, or a new statue being installed on its facade. Without freedom of panorama, in that case you could photograph the building, but only if you're careful to crop out the mural/statue from the photo.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  Which leaves a loophole then, tourist locations can prevent photography from including it by adding a copyrightable work to a building. Also can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by Google's streetview photographers (and copied and recopied many times over by Google). Based on such a draconian interpretation of copyright law I imagine a large company could successfully sue Google with this (eg if new owners were asset stripping anyway and so didn't need to use Google for advertising/location services).
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Also can shops not sue Google as their window displays have been copied by Google's streetview photographers On that note: http://streetghosts.net/ http://streetghosts.net/
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      Love it, street art using images of blurred out people from Google's Streetview pasted in the real life locations where the original images were captured.
  - mjn 11y ago
    Yes, that's why freedom of panorama is an exception to copyright in many jurisdictions, because otherwise taking photos of public places becomes a minefield of copyrightable stuff strewn everywhere.
- revscat 11y ago
  > Yes, artistic lighting installations can be copyrightable, That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    It's not asinine. Being able to copyright creative lighting installations seems reasonable: what if someone copies your design? But it's not reasonable to charge anyone who takes a photo of it.
    - chinathrow 11y ago
      Yeah but come on... that sounds so ridiciouls.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      I think the asinine part is copyright transferring to another medium. Its one thing to copyright the lighting installation (which is a fine thing, more power to you), but another thing to now own copyright a photo that happens to have said installation in it.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        What if I take a high quality picture of a painting? What about a video of a photograph? What about a film based on a book?
        protomyth 11y ago
        I think we are talking about a public installation like a sculpture, building, etc. No photograph, book, or film is an actual copy; but your examples are all basically trying to make a copy that can function like the original.
        bostonpete 11y ago
        Couldn't a series of photos be composited to function like an original sculpture? E.g. a photosphere or VR-like presentation that allows the viewer to experience the sculpture from different angles, perhaps even in 3D?
IshKebab 11y ago
Weird, I read that too!

NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago

> Wtf? what is the justification for this? It's called a "money grab". Wouldn't you love to be able to tax photographers for taking pictures of public places too? I mean, it's not as if there will be no pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night, that'd be silly. They'll just be able to restrict those photos to those willing to pay licensing fees. But this is Europe we're talking about... the same people who think the label "cheddar cheese" should be copyrightable.

arethuza 11y ago
I think you might mean a "protected designation of origin" or a "protected geographical indication" rather than "copyright" - apparently "cheddar cheese" has no such protection although "Orkney Cheddar Cheese" does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_cheese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_cheese This actually seems reasonable to me, perhaps because I am European and also rather fond of good cheese!
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  This is more generally known as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation Another example is champagne. Sparkling wine from other regions is not technically champagne. However, limiting the ability of the public to photograph things outdoors doesn't seem quite comparable. If a real estate company owned a significant number of buildings in a downtown area, could they then copyright the skyline of a city as the creative work of their collective architectural firms? If you made a large installation visible from space (say, the Palm Islands in Dubai), could you claim copyright on images of Earth with high enough detail to make out your work? Basically, what's the limit on this, because it seems like it has a pretty high ceiling for ridiculousness.
  - germanier 11y ago
    > If a real estate company owned a significant number of buildings in a downtown area, could they then copyright the skyline of a city as the creative work of their collective architectural firms? Usually copyright belongs to the architect and can't be transferred to anyone in Europe. > If you made a large installation visible from space (say, the Palm Islands in Dubai), could you claim copyright on images of Earth with high enough detail to make out your work? I'm pretty sure that's already the case in many jurisdictions, including Germany where there is freedom of panorama. That only applies for images taken without technical assistance to get the view and using a satellite to take the picture is certainly technical assistance (as is a ladder btw.).