So Alex, did you get permission from the Parisian authorities to use this photo or are you expecting a nasty email?!?

Yay! Another letter for the "Gallery of Angry Emails!"
(You should really set that up, Alex.)

That's really offensive, if true.

I say go ahead and use the lighted image ALL YOU WANT. If the French get gripy about it just declare war... heck they'd surrender to the RI National Guard or probably even the Boy Scouts for that matter... so really, what are they gonna do about it??? Nada...

Copyright traditionally refers to printed material, writings, photographs, movies, etc. As far as I know, it does not cover statues and similar works. However, I do not know the French law on the subject. If so, what about all the photos of "The Thinker" and other statues? Technically, a photo of a statue is a seperate work than the statue itself. A photo of the light pattern on the Eiffel Tower would be, therefore, copyrightable in itself seperate from the light show wouldn't it?

If video or photographs are taken from public property, then it's legal to do so. I can take a picture of a McDonald's sign (which is heavily trademarked and copyrighted) from across the street and no copyright infringements were committed. And I can publish that photo in commerce as long as I don't claim that McDonald's is endorsing what I am selling. The same is true for photographing people. Also, a copyright is only good if you are willing to defend it. So, if you post a picture of the Eiffle Tower at night on your web page, they will have to sue you to have it removed. If they don't sue you and they know about it, then they are setting a president that it's ok to "publish" these type of photos. It's all bunk. They are just trying to make a buck. Oh, one more thing, anytime anything is created, it is legally copyrighted. Like this posting. So think twice before you copy and paste these words! 😉

Christopher, you might find the copyright FAQ at the US copyright office useful: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

Granted, it's the US one, but many countries cooperate on these things and have similar rules.

In general, copyright applies to any original art -- written, sculpted, performed, erected, etc, for 70 years (iirc). It used to be that you had to write "copyright" on it.

Musuems claim copyright on ancient items that they own, and this is much more iffy. A recent decision said that photos of flat ancient artwork are not copyrightable, because no new artistic expression was involved.

Imo, lighting the Tower is not much different than painting it a different color, and shouldn't be copyrightable, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a Frenchman.

Mike M. You just described American copyright law which does not apply to the issue. If someone could explain French copyright law we all would be on better grounds for this discussion. Each nation has its own copyright law and except as provided under international treaty no nation has to follow another nation's law. When in France you have to obey French copyright law, but in America you do not, except as I mentioned where covered by treaty. If in France it is legal to copyright the light pattern on the Eiffel Tower, then printing a photo of it there would be against the law unless proper procedures were followed. Photos printed here fall under American law but since America ratified the copyright treaties, French copyrights must be respected and Federal authorities would prosecute if the French filed a complaint since France also is a member of the copyright treaties.

Actually, under the Bern Convention the US and France effectively do have the same copyright law.

The copyright is intended to prevent the image of the tower from being used in ways that the owners don't approve. They arn't trying to stop amateurs from taking photos and putting it on their personal web pages. The copyright applies more to commercial uses. Also, the fee goes to the city of Paris, not to some individual or company looking to make a buck.

First of all. McDonalds is not copyrighted, it's trademarked and there is a reason for the distinction in intellectual property law. Second, Copyright subsists which means you never had to write "copyright" anywhere near what you were copyrighting. Copyright intentionally applies to an open range of expressions fixed in a tangible medium for at least a transitory duration- so it doesn't "usually apply to written works" etc. Otherwise Copyright could not subsist. Also, what the French government would do if they discovered your infringement and they decided they wanted to do something about it is use the treaty related to intellectual property which the US signed onto along with all EU nations and sue you in court. And the US government would support this because your personal distaste, "Mark-N-Jen", for people you don't even know doesn't make any difference to an international treaty worth millions more to the US than your infringing purpose.

But they won't do anything because they've stated that all they want to do is control how the images are to be used and tourists are still free to take pictures as they please.

Finally, the last two comments were dead on. French copyright law is almost identical to US copyright law except that French IP law tends to give more rights to the artist and take more for the public's right to the work...in this case the SNTE which designed the display.

look for the story about the millenium park in chicago.

some more proof about this issue from fairly authorative sources:

http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/index.html

Q : Is the publishing of a photo of the Eiffel Tower permitted?
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 SNTE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright
(more info here)

The prohibition only applies to the image of the Eiffel Tower lit up at night time by the new lighting display installed in 2003. That means any photograph taken prior to the installation of that lighting system is not covered by the "copyright" and is therefore able to be published freely in exactly the same way day time photos of the tower are now.

As an FYI: A friend of mine just returned from France and of course began uploading his vacation photos and a short video clip showing the Eiffel Tower lit-up... One Facebook friend commented that it's against copyright and we all laughed at how completely stupid that is if it were true -- sure enough, not 15 minutes after the video was posted, he receives a strongly worded email from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) demanding he remove the images/video at once. This happened one hour ago!

He told them, "Not only have I removed them, I've also removed any and all chances I'll ever visit your piss-hole again, I'll take my camera and tourist dollars where they're welcome."