1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

French Copyright Quirk

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by daft_biker, Nov 8, 2017.

  1. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Crazy huh?......not something I'd have given a thought to before a holiday but fortunately I'm not a travel blogger or shooting stock images so I don't have to.

    Have we discussed the right to panorama before?
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    This has come up before. In France there is copyright protection for the lighting displays on the Eiffel Tower. Building facades can also be covered. It isn't necessarily true that you can use photographs taken from public land without permission. For your own purposes I think you are OK, as the task of hunting down everyone who takes a snap is an impossible one. I don't know where you'd be if you gave away an image that someone else used commercially.
    Footloose and daft_biker like this.
  3. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    You can copyright buildings in surprisingly many jurisdictions, especially the United States -- but only buildings created after 1990, in that country.

    This is of course a copyright of the lighting, which is even sillier. But I do not know of many successful actions for breach of copyright. Anywhere.


    daft_biker likes this.
  4. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    Music is copyright... but it is legal to use a small sample. Does the copyright of a building not apply to the whole building...allowing you to consider the outer skin as a small sample of the building?

  5. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Have you had a go with our new bridge yet?

    It's lovely and we can photograph it all we want unlike that big one in France.
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Nice try! For the printed word you are (in the UK) allowed to make a single copy of part of a work for personal use. So for study purposes you can copy a few pages from a book or an article from a journal but not the whole of the thing. Way back, at work, I used to have to sign a declaration of use when ordering (then paper) copies. Every photocopier had a copyright protection notice on it. When electronic rather than physical delivery of reproductions took over there were two prices for BL services, personal and copyright paid. The latter meant that, if you requested a copy of a journal article you could share it. For a period non-copyright paid articles would lock themselves to the machine they were opened on (I lost hundreds of references when computers were changed) and only print once. This is futile with modern photopiers which will output a duplex scan as a pdf in seconds and I haven't seen a non-portable pdf for many years. I presume everything provided through a library service is now copyright paid by default as the easy way to get around this.
  7. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    Comes down to the difference between owning copyright and choosing to enforce it. The cost of policing every image of the tower at night would be far more than they'd ever feasibly recoup so they don't bother. It's only if you opt to make money out of it in some way that they might come crashing down on you, but even then it probably depends on the scale and reach of what you're doing.
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  8. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I just remembered. Last week we saw the Poppies: Wave display at Plymouth at the memorial on the Ho. It had large notices (placed out of any possible shot, which was a nice thought) permitting photography for personal use but forbidding commercial use. I would think this is an example of copyright assertion relating to an art installation.

Share This Page