5 ms·
I read somewhere that it's because of the lights on the tower being done more recently.
by macjohnmcc 11y ago
I read somewhere that it's because of the lights on the tower being done more recently.
- mjn 11y agoYes, 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 agoWhich 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 agoAlso 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 agoLove 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 agoYes, 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 agoIt'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 agoYeah but come on... that sounds so ridiciouls.
- protomyth 11y agoI 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 agoWhat 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 agoI 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 agoCouldn'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 agoWeird, I read that too!