UFO over Paris

[vanhulsenbeek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

 

Wow yes! Mama (Daddy?) Leica has protected us again

[Olsen]

These UFO's are flying all over the place this summer. Here some shots taken in the deep forests of Sweden.

 

The first with a 1Ds III & 50 mm 1,0L with an ordinary UV filter - with a low flying UFO in the backgound.

 

The second; M8 and a Noctilux, with something looking like a glowing firefly in the gras there. - There is no fireflies in the Swedish forests, though. - A few night later we heard the wolf's houl, though.

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]

Sorry I should have put one of these at the end of my previous comment.

 

I did e mail the French Embassy to clarify if whether or not it was illegal to photograph people in public, in France, and they told me that its illegal to publish without the persons permission - so I guess the same applies to the copyrighted, illuminated Eiffel Tower.

 

I'd love to contact them and say I was taking some photos of something else nearby, and could they turn the lights off so that I don't infringe their copyright if the tower happens to be in the background!

 

[leicajh]

I may build a tower in Texas and not allow the French to photograph it. Just kidding for the titely wrapped members here,,my grandmother was French.jh

[brivadois]

Thanks everybody for your help.

Here is a gift: a picture you can publish (no lighting license): I didn't realize that it was such a problem !

 

jh: nobody is perfect !

 

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!

[Olsen]

If you are going to photograph UFO's it is much smarter to photograph 'from' the Eifel Tower, by the way.

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!

[brivadois]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice shot !

 

François

[ChrisC]

then why do you even bother to respond?

 

I did not respond to your aggressive presumption. I hoped to clarify a confusion in the thread.

 

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.

 

Wasn't it clear that I know there is no restriction on publishing a picture of the Eiffel Tower made in daylight? Night photographs are [probably] only subject to local French copyright interpretation in FRANCE. This is not a French forum it is a global forum.

 

I seem to recall a time when their was a blanket attempt to restrict the publication of all photographs of the Eiffel Tower under the guise of breach of trademark-copyright ownership of the Tower's 'image', presumably the first attempts failed in the French Courts - leading to the current 'Eiffel-lighting' restriction. Similar attempts were made in the UK to give Eiffel-like protection from photographs of St. Paul's Cathedral and other buildings. Thankfully, sensibly, those attempts failed.

 

light or its arrangement is considered as art,

 

Wasn't it clear that I know that? As Andy succinctly pointed out; in order to copy the lighting one has to first build another tower. A photograph of a building or public work of art is not a copy of the building or work of art, and therefore [in UK law for example, and elsewhere] is not a breach of ANY copyright held for that building or work of art. In the UK and elsewhere the photograph becomes a new work in it's own right without any debt to the building or public work of art that is it's subject [and rightly so in most photographers opinions].

 

You argue in a global photography forum [your post No.10] that the French Eiffel-photography copyright protections should be respected in neighbouring countries whose own laws refuse such protection. I think you are interpreting a French anti-photographer law as a pro-copyright law when to most photographers it clearly it isn't.

 

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

[Laki]

i didnt see any aggression in my posts, i guess you missenterpreted the smily.

 

anyway, when they say its not allowed to publish a photo of the illuminated eifel tower then i dont see why it is now allowed. you might think that it is allowed to publish it anywhere outside of france, but copyright is not only for france.

 

no matter if i find that stupid or not, i try at least to avoid conflicts with copyright laws and thats what i wanted to express. thats also the reason, in my first post, asking you if you wouldnt mind if someone publishes some of your work/art or whatever for example in china.

 

and again, this and none of my posts were meant in an agressive way. some of my photos (which i wouldnt consider as art anyway) are also published on asian/russian and wherever else and i'm not really happy about that. so i can quite understand why people try to enforce copyright laws.

[Vieri]

...

 

You argue in a global photography forum [your post No.10] that the French Eiffel-photography copyright protections should be respected in neighbouring countries whose own laws refuse such protection. I think you are interpreting a French anti-photographer law as a pro-copyright law when to most photographers it clearly it isn't.

 

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

 

Hello Chris, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the point is not - unfortunately - in what photographers would consider right, wrong, or plain nonsense. I do agree with your position, as I clearly stated above; however, this decision is not up to us to make. If the French copyright law grants copyright to night images of the Eiffel Tower, and if France signed the international copyright agreement (as they did), a copyright granted in France is enforceable in all countries party to the treaty. As simple as that.

 

If this wasn't be the case, you could just copy & sell CDs, DVDs, books, whatever that has not being physically published and registered for copyright in your country - which you can try and do, but I would rather not.

 

The point here is not the theoretic question on wether a photo of a work of art/building/etc is a copy of the work or a new piece of art, as you state, the point here is that if the French law granted copyright protection towards night photos of the Eiffel Tower, as such, they are protected and taking such images (for other purposes than keeping them in your hard disc) is copyright infringement - excluded, I assume, the classical non-profit clauses.

[ChrisC]

.... the point here is that if the French law granted copyright protection towards night photos of the Eiffel Tower, as such, they are protected and taking such images... is copyright infringement....

 

Vieri - Hi. Within France certainly. Outside of France I think not; you suggest otherwise. I believe the Eiffel 'illumination' copyright protections could not be upheld [for example] in UK law.

 

There's a marvellous scene in the Eddy Murphy film Trading Places where he is cornered by police in a 'gentlemen's club' and calls out; "is there a lawyer in the place?'.

Followed by lots of nervous, disinterested shuffling and coughing by the assembled throng of lawyers.

 

So; is there a lawyer in the place?

 

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

[Vieri]

Vieri - Hi. Within France certainly. Outside of France I think not; you suggest otherwise. I believe the Eiffel 'illumination' copyright protections could not be upheld [for example] in UK law.

 

There's a marvellous scene in the Eddy Murphy film Trading Places where he is cornered by police in a 'gentlemen's club' and calls out; "is there a lawyer in the place?'.

Followed by lots of nervous, disinterested shuffling and coughing by the assembled throng of lawyers.

 

So; is there a lawyer in the place?

 

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

 

Hi Chris, well I think you are wrong and below is the proof, however if you would feel more comfortable with a professional opinion, until a lawyer shows up in the house this is what I can offer you.

 

Let's just stick to logic and to what information we have both available, shall we?

 

Logic first. You are aware of international copyright law, I assume, and of the fact that there is a treaty between nations upholding copyright between the nations party of the treaty; the reason for this is that, under this treaty, a work of art (or anything copyrightable) need to be copyrighted in only one country for the copyright to be valid in all countries party of the treaty. As such, I could have my CD, DVD, book, whatever, copyrighted in Italy - say - and you couldn't copy and resell it in the UK without breaking the law (this, assuming Italy and UK are party of the treaty). Agreed so far? Ok. Then, wether you and I find it absurd or not, if France allowed night lighting of Eiffel to be copyrighted, and if France in party of the international copyright treaty, then the copyright assigned in France is enforceable in all the countries party of the treaty. Agreed? Ok. The question then is: are France and the UK party of the treaty?

 

Now the information part:

The answer is yes, because they both are signatories of the Berne Convention (edit: they both are since 1887): here an abstract from the Wikipedia related article.

 

"Before the Berne Convention, national copyright laws usually only applied for works created within each country. Consequently, a work published in United Kingdom (UK) by a British national would be covered by copyright there, but could be copied and sold by anyone in France. Likewise, a work published in France by a French national could be copyright there, but could be copied and sold by anyone in the UK."

 

...

 

"The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals"

 

I think this settles it, don't you?

[Vieri]

More info:

 

- 163 countries are party of the Berne Convention;

- France, the UK, Italy, Swiss, Spain, Belgium and some other EU countries are party since 1887, the USA since 1988;

 

if you want, you can check it out on Wikipedia for more details.

[ho_co]

François--

Really lovely image above (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/60403-ufo-over-paris-2.html#post625547)!

 

Thanks for posting!

[Neil J]

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

I have just returned from Paris and took pictures of the Eiffel tower at night with an obliging policeman standing alongside my daughter. She is a good looking girl and he didn't seem too concerned with me taking the shot. Even though I used a D3 and 24-70 Are you sure about the copyright laws? Is there a link to the regulations on photographing buildings in Paris?

[adan]

Neil: TAKING pictures of the ET at night is not illegal - publishing them commercially (i.e. for monetary recompense in a book, magazine etc.) IS (apparently) illegal unless you pay a "modeling fee" to the lightshow creators and get signed permission.

 

The "flic" didn't stop you from pressing the shutter button - but put out a book for sale with that picture in it and you may get a court summons. Two different events.

 

---- The following includes some politically explosive examples. I take no position here except to mention them as examples. PLEASE stay off the politics and stick with the legal questions! ---

 

 

Chris, there is a legal expression "full faith and credence" - which means that signatories to an agreement must accept a status conferred by the other signatories even if their own laws do not confer such status within their own jurisdiction. If France allows a public light show to be copyrighted, then Britain (and the US etc.) must accept and defend that specific copyright of that light show, even if they do not confer such copyrights on such works within their own borders.

 

Just as China is SUPPOSED to defend US copyrights of software and music and films within China (but often hasn't).

 

The US is likely to see a big consitutional battle over "full faith and credence" now that Mass. and Calif. permit same-sex marriages. All US states are supposed to give FF&C to the laws of other states, including marriages. Yet there are states that have specifically passed "defense of marriage" laws that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages OR the observance of same. Eventually a gay couple married in MA or CA is going to claim marital rights within one of those other states, be denied them, and file a lawsuit that will end up in the Supreme Court.

 

On the question of public photography of persons in France: a) what about photographing a riot? Do French newspapers have to get permission from each individual rioter to publish news pictures of riots or other public events? No wonder H.C-B put down his camera and took up sketching!

[brivadois]

Howard,

 

Thanks for your comment on my picture.

 

François

[ChrisC]

Vieri and Andy - Thank you for your considered responses which I read carefully. As I read you; a UK photographer who published a nigh-time Eiffel picture in the UK without appropriate clearance could be liable to UK prosecution even though there is no UK law that has been breached. That raises a large can-of-worms [alluded to by Andy in his USA example] regarding the sanctity of sovereign laws and the level-playing-field access to law required by citizens.

 

Of course the UK has signed up to international agreements on copyrights, but the devil is in the detail with regard to what exactly they have signed up to. My instinct still is that an attempted prosecution in the UK, in my cited example above, would be thrown out of court. But I'd really like to have a lawyer confirm that for me because the alternative would be viewed as farcical by most UK photographers, and I would hope - constitutional lawyers.

 

Hells teeth; it's hard enough to be a photographer without having to think about the reach of another country's arcane laws.

 

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

[Vieri]

Vieri and Andy - Thank you for your considered responses which I read carefully. As I read you; a UK photographer who published a nigh-time Eiffel picture in the UK without appropriate clearance could be liable to UK prosecution even though there is no UK law that has been breached.

 

In fact there is, in a way - the treaty "connect" copyright breaching between countries, so to speak, the point as I said before is not wether copyrighting something makes or not sense for you or if a court would grant a similar copyright in your country. The point is, when a copyright is granted in any of the countries party of the treaty, breaching it is illegal in ANY of the countries party of the treaty. Therefore, it is illegal in those country; therefore, the law HAS been breached in the UK.

 

Of course the UK has signed up to international agreements on copyrights, but the devil is in the detail with regard to what exactly they have signed up to. My instinct still is that an attempted prosecution in the UK, in my cited example above, would be thrown out of court. But I'd really like to have a lawyer confirm that for me because the alternative would be viewed as farcical by most UK photographers, and I would hope - constitutional lawyers.

 

No, it wouldn't. In fact, the whole point is exactly to preserve artists from the opposite: it would indeed being farcical if you would get copyright granted to you for your next photo book in the UK, and I could just buy a copy, reproduce it and sell it in Italy without any consequence. Wouldn't it? Anyway, I gave you enough examples, including the text of the law and the Wikipedia simplified reference to check out; I repeated my points enough, I guess, so off I go from this thread - you can believe what you choose to believe anyway, so there is no point for me in keeping repeating myself

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[markgay]

Quoting Sander: “Oh well, who thought about freedom, equality and brotherhood in the first place?”

 

American revolution 1776 (with victory on the battlefield, 1781). French revolution 1789. It is a common French misconception that somehow their political system is older than that of the US, or, alternatively, that they have been a liberal, democratic nation longer than the US.

French Revolution - Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia

 

Quoting James: “I did e mail the French Embassy to clarify if whether or not it was illegal to photograph people in public, in France, and they told me that its illegal to publish without the persons permission - so I guess the same applies to the copyrighted, illuminated Eiffel Tower.”

 

The French requirement to obtain someone’s permission before you publish their photograph – and consequently the extension to all areas of intellectual property – are arguably consequences of a move by the French elite to control the press, particularly privacy over their financial, political and personal dealings. However, all kinds of justifications are now being used in many different countries.

 

In the UK, the battle over public access to information continues to rage.

Journalism jobs and news from Holdthefrontpage.co.uk

 

The UK government’s latest interpretation of the law is that regional heads of police should make it up as they go along:

 

"If you think it’s getting bad for photographers in the United States, just be bloody glad our forefathers broke allegiance from the King of England centuries ago.

After all, United Kingdom Home Secretary Jacqui Smith recently declared that local Chief Constables (police chiefs) have the right to restrict or set their own standards for public photography, according to the British Journal of Photography. In other words, police in England will not only enforce the law, they will also interpret the law when it comes to photographers.“

U.K. police allowed to set their own restrictions on public photography

 

As to laws being enforceable in other countries. Read this:

 

“Flickr normally has a “SafeSearch” option that can be turned on or off by users to block images that are flagged for offensiveness. German users, however, do not have the option to turn SafeSearch off. Yahoo cites the age-restriction laws in Germany for the photo viewing limitations, according to an AP report last week.”

 

Is that really about German law or US law or the interpretion by Flickr of German law.

German Outcry over Flickr Restrictions - Mobile Phones / Photo Sharing - Digital Camera Reviews, Ratings of Digital Cameras & Comparisons of Popular Cameras - DigitalCameraInfo.com

 

Finally, a symposium was held in 2004 entitled NoPhoto: Privacy, Permission and Personal Space in Photography.

http://www.redeye.org.uk/redeye/pdf/Redeye%20NoPhoto%20Symposium%20Report%202004.PDF

 

Regards,

Mark