• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Eiffel Tower copyrighted?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

justalayman

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? amazed


http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/the-eiffel-tower-image-and-brand/image-rights-the-eiffel-tower-brand.html

things I never considered;

the Eiffel Tower, at night, given the "artistic" lighting display, is not able to be photographed as it falls under copyright protections.
 


quincy

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? amazed


http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/the-eiffel-tower-image-and-brand/image-rights-the-eiffel-tower-brand.html

things I never considered;

the Eiffel Tower, at night, given the "artistic" lighting display, is not able to be photographed as it falls under copyright protections.
Although it might seem odd at first, the lighting display is a creative expression not unlike other creative expressions deserving of copyright protection. The Eiffel Tower, too, was once protected under copyright law until the copyright expired.

The Picture Archive Council of America compiled a (partial) list of American properties that are rights-protected or have elements that are protected: http://www.pacaoffice.org/resources/specialReleases.html

Here are two additional links of possible interest, from the American Society of Media Photographers and from WIPO, on international rights :

ASMP: http://asmp.org/tutorials/photos-public-buildings.html#.VF6ZaZoo5zQ

WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip-photography.pdf

Because many buildings and property are in view of and open to the public, it is often believed that these are in all cases free to photograph and the photographs free to publish. However, trademark and copyright laws need to be considered prior to photographing and, perhaps more importantly, prior to publishing photographs.

That said, it is not surprising that so many people infringe on some IP rights.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
If I had thought about it, it does make sense but I would love to see some sort of "public display" exception (similar to the building exceptions currently in place) No idea how you could craft one that would not also remove protections from something as simple as a billboard but something like a light display is something the producer should actually expect to be recorded.



this brings a question to mind:


are fireworks displays covered under copyrights, at least in the US? I would think so as it is an artistic work (at least an organized show would be considered such). If so, does that mean when I take pics of the fireworks shows I attend I am breaking the law?:eek:

On top of that, individual shots are often created with specific designs; are each of them individually copyrighted when displayed?
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
from your list:

The Lone Cypress Tree at Pebble Beach California.


https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Lone+Cypress+tree+at+Pebble+Beach,+CA&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=GaJeVLncF9KAygSU6oHQDQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1085&bih=747

come on now; it's a freakin' tree. How can nature be trademark protected? What happens as the tree grows? What would happen if a branch broke off?

While I understand the image of the tree, taken from a specific perspective, including a defined area could be used as the basis for the image registered as a TM, the living tree itself being a TM? without it being from a specific angle and limited to a defined inclusion of surrounding area? a bit far reaching to me.
 

quincy

Senior Member
from your list:

The Lone Cypress Tree at Pebble Beach California.


https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Lone+Cypress+tree+at+Pebble+Beach,+CA&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=GaJeVLncF9KAygSU6oHQDQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1085&bih=747

come on now; it's a freakin' tree. How can nature be trademark protected? What happens as the tree grows? What would happen if a branch broke off?

While I understand the image of the tree, taken from a specific perspective, including a defined area could be used as the basis for the image registered as a TM, the living tree itself being a TM? without it being from a specific angle and limited to a defined inclusion of surrounding area? a bit far reaching to me.
As to your fireworks and firework display questions, fireworks and the firework display can have patent protection. But there would be no copyright protection in a firework display because copyright protects expressions FIXED in tangible forms, and fireworks are not fixed in a tangible form for more than just a transitory duration. The broadcast of a display could be offered copyright protection (say, if NBC acquires exclusive rights to broadcast a fireworks show), and photographs of fireworks will be offered protection if original and creative enough.

The Cypress Tree is used as a trademark so an image that captures the tree in the same or similar fashion could infringe (just as certain images taken of buildings that are used as trademarks can infringe). There is little likelihood, perhaps, of a photo of the tree confusing consumers. And I suppose some bonsai trees could be offered copyright protection (although I have not heard of anything like that).
 

justalayman

Senior Member
quincy;3302692]As to your fireworks and firework display questions, fireworks and the firework display can have patent protection. But there would be no copyright protection in a firework display because copyright protects expressions FIXED in tangible forms, and fireworks are not fixed in a tangible form for more than just a transitory duration.
How long must something be fixed to be able to be covered under copyright? In a static display at the Eiffel Tower, I can kind of see the difference in the fireworks issue but may parts of the display are dynamic with constant changes, just as a firework would be seen and then it's gone.

but as to something being in a fixed form:

is a spontaneous speech protected under copyright protections? or is it only after it is recorded, either on some audio medium or transcribed? If I remember your teachings, it is the latter.



The Cypress Tree is used as a trademark so an image that captures the tree in the same or similar fashion could infringe (just as certain images taken of buildings that are used as trademarks can infringe). There is little likelihood, perhaps, of a photo of the tree confusing consumers. And I suppose some bonsai trees could be offered copyright protection (although I have not heard of anything like that).
so what happens as the tree changes with age? Is it no longer the image registered and as such, no longer protected under TM law? I suppose a limited amount of change would be not great enough to change it such that it is no longer recognizable as "the tree" but if it split or lost a major limb, would that be enough alteration to remove it from TM protection?
 

quincy

Senior Member
How long must something be fixed to be able to be covered under copyright? In a static display at the Eiffel Tower, I can kind of see the difference in the fireworks issue but may parts of the display are dynamic with constant changes, just as a firework would be seen and then it's gone.

but as to something being in a fixed form:

is a spontaneous speech protected under copyright protections? or is it only after it is recorded, either on some audio medium or transcribed? If I remember your teachings, it is the latter.
The Copyright Act says that a work is fixed when "its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord ... is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration," but what a transitory duration would be is not defined. Therefore, it has been left to the courts to determine what is, and is not, a transitory duration.

One of the several cases where transitory duration was an issue is The Cartoon Network LP, LLP v CSC Holdings, Inc, No. 07-1480 & 07-1511 (2d Cir, Aug 4, 2008). Here is a link (scroll to "The Buffer Data," page 4): http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/peple/tfisher/IP/2008 Cartoon Abridged.pdf

Here also is a link to a Copyright Office DMCA Section 104 Report, which addresses transitory duration (see 110.12): http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_study.html

As to spontaneous speech as opposed to scripted speech, spontaneous speech is not protected unless the words spoken are fixed in some way (on paper or through a sound recording or a videotape).

so what happens as the tree changes with age? Is it no longer the image registered and as such, no longer protected under TM law? I suppose a limited amount of change would be not great enough to change it such that it is no longer recognizable as "the tree" but if it split or lost a major limb, would that be enough alteration to remove it from TM protection?
When the tree changes with age or loses a limb or two, I imagine it would no longer resemble the trademark - although similarities could still be enough to infringe on trademark rights. And it would be the use of any photo of the tree more than the photo-taking itself that would give rise to trademark issues. In fact, the taking of photos in general is not an issue as often as what is done with the photographs once taken.
 
Last edited:

racer72

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? amazed


http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/the-eiffel-tower-image-and-brand/image-rights-the-eiffel-tower-brand.html

things I never considered;

the Eiffel Tower, at night, given the "artistic" lighting display, is not able to be photographed as it falls under copyright protections.
Use of the images is all that is copyrighted, one can take all the pictures they want.

However, its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the "Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" (the Eiffel Tower’s operating company, or SETE).
There are literally hundreds of nighttime pictures of the Eiffel tower on night on the internet. I have at least 50 I took when I was there a few years ago.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
Use of the images is all that is copyrighted, one can take all the pictures they want.



There are literally hundreds of nighttime pictures of the Eiffel tower on night on the internet. I have at least 50 I took when I was there a few years ago.
Au contraire mon ami. Taking a picture is reproducing the work and in itself is a violation. Whether they enforce their rights aganst a personal use is up to them but it doesn't change the legality of the reproduction.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Use of the images is all that is copyrighted, one can take all the pictures they want.



There are literally hundreds of nighttime pictures of the Eiffel tower on night on the internet. I have at least 50 I took when I was there a few years ago.
Just because something is found on the internet does not mean it does not violate a law. I am sure you know that, racer72.

Copyrighted works and trademarks are infringed with some frequency online, and the penalties for infringement can in some cases be extremely harsh. In this country, published photos of the Eiffel tower at night will probably result in the filing of a DMCA notice and the matter will end there for the photographer/publisher. A commercial use of the rights-protected image, on the other hand, could lead to an infringement suit against the photographer.

Taking photographs, as a note, can be okay but the image that results is a reproduction - and the right to reproduce a copyrighted work is held exclusively by the copyright holder.
 

single317dad

Senior Member
This seems like a logical avenue for celebrities to pursue as protection against paparazzi; simply build one's image as a commercial brand, then sue anyone who reproduces the work in photographic form.

I'm sure it's been tried (there are no original ideas, especially from me). I'm also sure it's been shot down.
 

quincy

Senior Member
This seems like a logical avenue for celebrities to pursue as protection against paparazzi; simply build one's image as a commercial brand, then sue anyone who reproduces the work in photographic form.

I'm sure it's been tried (there are no original ideas, especially from me). I'm also sure it's been shot down.
Do you mean string themselves with lights? :)

Many celebrities have their names and images protected under trademark laws (they have developed a product or service line), and all celebrities are all protected by publicity/privacy rights laws (as are even average folks like us).

But celebrities have also intentionally placed themselves in the public eye and, therefore, they have given up some of their privacy rights. Because celebrities are in a sense a commercial product, the publicity they receive in the form of published photographs could in a way be considered free advertising for this product and to their benefit. Those who are out of the public eye for awhile often have their careers suffer as a result.
 

racer72

Senior Member
Taking photographs, as a note, can be okay but the image that results is a reproduction - and the right to reproduce a copyrighted work is held exclusively by the copyright holder.
That is what I was saying. The OP is saying one cannot take pictures of the tower at night. When I went to Paris a few years ago, I didn't see signs that said we could not take pictures of the tower at night. The Paris police and Eiffel tower security would happily let you take a picture of them standing in front of the tower while it was ablaze in lights. There are places in Paris that prohibit photography, such as the Louvre. There are signs and guards to ensure that it does not happen.

This site explains it all very well.

http://torrentfreak.com/night-time-eiffel-tower-photos-are-a-copyright-violation-141108/
 

justalayman

Senior Member
That is what I was saying. The OP is saying one cannot take pictures of the tower at night. When I went to Paris a few years ago, I didn't see signs that said we could not take pictures of the tower at night. The Paris police and Eiffel tower security would happily let you take a picture of them standing in front of the tower while it was ablaze in lights. There are places in Paris that prohibit photography, such as the Louvre. There are signs and guards to ensure that it does not happen.

This site explains it all very well.

http://torrentfreak.com/night-time-eiffel-tower-photos-are-a-copyright-violation-141108/
fine, you can take all the pictures you want. The problem is, to view the pictures you took, you must produce a recreation. That is what is prohibited by copyright law. I simply skipped over the need to actually produce the reproduction as it makes no sense to speak of taking pictures without actually producing them in a tangible and viewable form somewhere along the line.

so, stand there and snap away. Just don't view them.


and this is from your link:

According to Dimitrov this effectively means that people are not allowed to publicly use photos of the Atomium, Eiffel Tower at night, or any other copyrighted architecture. Not even on social media.

“If you take an image of the Atomium and put it on Facebook, that is copyright infringement,” Dimitrov says.
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
That is what I was saying. The OP is saying one cannot take pictures of the tower at night. When I went to Paris a few years ago, I didn't see signs that said we could not take pictures of the tower at night. The Paris police and Eiffel tower security would happily let you take a picture of them standing in front of the tower while it was ablaze in lights. There are places in Paris that prohibit photography, such as the Louvre. There are signs and guards to ensure that it does not happen. ...
That is why I said in my first post that it is not surprising so many people infringe on IP rights. It is hard for most people to think it could be illegal to take a picture of a tree or a building and publish these photos on their Facebook page (or wherever).

With copyright law, though, there is no need to announce or label in any way that a work is copyright-protected. The copyright attaches to any creative and original work without this need. There does not have to be a sign, in other words, saying "This work is rights-protected" or "No photos." It is left for the public to figure it all out - and, because a lot of what is rights-protected goes against common sense, the public often gets it wrong. :)

Fortunately with the DMCA takedown notice available in the US to copyright holders, which allows for a relatively easy and cheap alternative to legal action, the copyright holder can inform unintentional infringers of the infringement and the infringed material will be removed from its place online - and that will be the end of that. The copyright holder will not demand compensation or attempt to sue for infringement, even though they could.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top