UFO over Paris

[brivadois]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very strange: when there are strong lights all my night pictures have the same problem.

Is it the M8's sensor, the summicron 35 or its filter ?

 

Thanks for your help.

 

François

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[stunsworth]

It's the filter. The lights from the boat are reflecting from the surface of the filter back towards the sensor.

 

If you remove the filter the reflections should disappear.

[brivadois]

Steve,

 

Thanks for your help.

Next time I go to Paris, I remove the filter (and take the picture an hour earlier). Unfortunately, the Eiffel Tower won't get the same color (it's only until the end of the year).

 

François

[vanhulsenbeek]

Steve,

 

Thanks for your help.

Next time I go to Paris, I remove the filter (and take the picture an hour earlier). Unfortunately, the Eiffel Tower won't get the same color (it's only until the end of the year).

 

François

 

Why? You can also stamp it away in PS:

Nobody will ever see!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[earleygallery]

Isn't it supposedly illegal to photograph the Eiffel Tower at night?

[vanhulsenbeek]

Isn't it supposedly illegal to photograph the Eiffel Tower at night?

 

Maybe only for a repeat-shot in blue

 

Excuses: I do indeed remember reading somewhere that for copyright reasons it is forbidden in France to take photo's of copyrighted buildings. Although Gustav Eiffel is since long dead, the Tower when floodlit maybe under copyright! When considered to be a work of art?

[Vieri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe only for a repeat-shot in blue

 

Excuses: I do indeed remember reading somewhere that for copyright reasons it is forbidden in France to take photo's of copyrighted buildings. Although Gustav Eiffel is since long dead, the Tower when floodlit maybe under copyright! When considered to be a work of art?

 

Indeed the lighting of the Tour Eiffel is copyrighted - whatever sense would this make. However, taking photos for non-commercial use is probably Ok - though I am not sure about it, maybe someone out there more expert in French copyright law can offer some help on this.

 

Again, whatever the text of the law is, to me "copyrighting the lighting" sounds like a cheap trick to forbid you to take your own photos and sell you postcards and "official" images for which the French government or the City of Paris or whoever own this so-called copyright gets to make some money. Very low IMHO.

[Venkman]

Isn't it supposedly illegal to photograph the Eiffel Tower at night?

 

Not sure about taking pictures, but publishing surely is. The lighting is copyrighted.

 

Dirk

[ChrisC]

Not sure about taking pictures, but publishing surely is. The lighting is copyrighted.

 

But; as I understand, only enforceable in France. Elsewhere [uK for example] publishing should be no problem.

 

................. Chris

[Laki]

But; as I understand, only enforceable in France. Elsewhere [uK for example] publishing should be no problem.

 

................. Chris

 

hm, that sounds to me like, copyright in your own country is ok and dont care about the others

so you wouldnt mind if, lets say, someone in china would use your copyrighted photos or work and publish them?

[ChrisC]

hm, that sounds to me like, copyright in your own country is ok and dont care about the others

so you wouldnt mind if, lets say, someone in china would use your copyrighted photos or work and publish them?

 

And that sounds to me like adding 2 + 2 and making 22. Your rolled eye speculation on my attitude to copyright is discourteous and not worth a response.

 

The point I was making was that publication of the image would not constitute a breach of the lighting designer's copyright because outside of France there mostly is no prevention of photographing public buildings and statues whilst on public land. The copyright restriction effecting publication of images of the Eiffel Tower may well be enforceable in France, but not in the UK [for example]. Replication of the actual lighting on a UK building, however, might well breach the copyright on the lighting.

 

You are welcome to believe that the restriction on publishing photographs of the Eiffel Tower as it applies in France is a good idea, but I don't. The copyright protection of the lighting design is a different matter. Living as I do outside of France, I am not affected by their local restrictions.

 

.................. Chris

[vanhulsenbeek]

And that sounds to me like adding 2 + 2 and making 22. Your rolled eye speculation on my attitude to copyright is discourteous and not worth a response........Living as I do outside of France, I am not affected by their local restrictions.

 

 

Well said Chris! A country' laws are its own concern and they are never enforceable in any other country, as a rule of thumb.

 

(We are ignoring here one well-known country of Anglo-Saxon stock, the US, where many people think their legal system is the 'nec-plus-ultra' and enforceable as well anywhere in the world, but fortunately they are dead wrong.)

[tbarker13]

Well said Chris! A country' laws are its own concern and they are never enforceable in any other country, as a rule of thumb.

 

(We are ignoring here one well-known country of Anglo-Saxon stock, the US, where many people think their legal system is the 'nec-plus-ultra' and enforceable as well anywhere in the world, but fortunately they are dead wrong.)

 

Are we perhaps forgetting the recent ruling in the French courts that is attempting to force Ebay to stop the sales of certain French-made perfumes and counterfeit luggage.

They are targeting the French version of the site and any site accessible by a person in France. I'd say that's a pretty good example of another country thinking its legal system should be enforced upon the rest of the world.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Are we perhaps forgetting the recent ruling in the French courts that is attempting to force Ebay to stop the sales of certain French-made perfumes and counterfeit luggage.

They are targeting the French version of the site and any site accessible by a person in France. I'd say that's a pretty good example of another country thinking its legal system should be enforced upon the rest of the world.

 

Oh well, who thought about freedom, equality and brotherhood in the first place?

[Vieri]

Well said Chris! A country' laws are its own concern and they are never enforceable in any other country, as a rule of thumb.

...

 

 

In the case of copyright laws, however, it depends. International copyright laws are subscribed by many countries, and therefore copyright obtained under one of the country signing the treaty is actually enforceable in all party countries. See CDs & DVDs, published music, books, etc.

 

According to your statement, if I buy a book in the UK, go to France, copy it and publish it as my own I would be Ok: I assume this would be hardly the case and very, very unlikely. Surely I am not going to try this, but you are free to do so and let me know the outcome

[Laki]

And that sounds to me like adding 2 + 2 and making 22. Your rolled eye speculation on my attitude to copyright is discourteous and not worth a response.

 

then why do you even bother to respond?

 

The point I was making was that publication of the image would not constitute a breach of the lighting designer's copyright because outside of France there mostly is no prevention of photographing public buildings and statues whilst on public land. The copyright restriction effecting publication of images of the Eiffel Tower may well be enforceable in France, but not in the UK [for example]. Replication of the actual lighting on a UK building, however, might well breach the copyright on the lighting.

 

thats wrong. go and read here FAQ

 

quote from that:

"Q : Are we allowed to publish photos of the Eiffel Tower?

A : There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SETE. "

 

You are welcome to believe that the restriction on publishing photographs of the Eiffel Tower as it applies in France is a good idea, but I don't. The copyright protection of the lighting design is a different matter. Living as I do outside of France, I am not affected by their local restrictions.

 

.................. Chris

 

well, the light or its arrangement is considered as art, maybe you should go and read the paper from the "berne convention for the protection of literary and artisitc works" (which is by the way also signed by the u.k.)

[jaapv]

I think copyright is only enforced for commercial use in this case. It is impossible to stop all non-commercial images of the Eiffel Tower by night on the Internet. Self-defeating too, from a tourism point of view.

[andybarton]

let's not have a row about this, folks.

 

After all, in order to breech the copyright on the lighting design on the tower, first you have to build your tower...

[stunsworth]

Perhaps the fact that only the lighting's copyrighted is the reason they haven't sued Blackpool. Then again, the illuminations must come pretty close to breaching the copyright.

 

Paris, bah. What's Paris got that Blackpool hasn't?

 

We've had this discussion before. Yes, the lights are copyrighted, no you aren't going to get sued if you take a photo and show it to your auntie. They are looking for bigger fish to fry.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dan States]

Perhaps the flare from the filter changes the image enough to avoid any copyright protection. That of course is why Leica DESIGNED it into the process:D