an excellent read from the ACLU

In article , says...

On 9/13/2011 4:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on
copyright.

The current FAQ for the Eiffel tower reads:

The views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free. Permission and rights
must be obtained from the "Société d?Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel"
(the Operating Company, or SETE) for the publication of photos of the
illuminated Eiffel Tower.

For newer buildings, monuments, and the like, further copyright
restrictions can apply outside the U.S. While U.S. federal law
explicitly permits pictorial representations of copyrighted
Architectural works without permission or license from the copyright
holder (17 USC 120(a)), there is no such exemption in the Berne
Convention.

As in many other countries, if the photograph also includes
identifiable images of people, further restrictions and laws come
into play. This falls into the "don't take legal advice from
random internet posters" category.

If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
incorporating the tower as a component.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote:
: In article , says...
:
: On 9/13/2011 4:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
:
: The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on
: copyright.
:
: The current FAQ for the Eiffel tower reads:
:
: The views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free. Permission and rights
: must be obtained from the "Société d?Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel"
: (the Operating Company, or SETE) for the publication of photos of the
: illuminated Eiffel Tower.
:
: For newer buildings, monuments, and the like, further copyright
: restrictions can apply outside the U.S. While U.S. federal law
: explicitly permits pictorial representations of copyrighted
: Architectural works without permission or license from the copyright
: holder (17 USC 120(a)), there is no such exemption in the Berne
: Convention.
:
: As in many other countries, if the photograph also includes
: identifiable images of people, further restrictions and laws come
: into play. This falls into the "don't take legal advice from
: random internet posters" category.
:
: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that could
happen here.

Bob

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:48:52 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote:
: In article , says...
:
: On 9/13/2011 4:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
:
: The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on
: copyright.
:
: The current FAQ for the Eiffel tower reads:
:
: The views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free. Permission and rights
: must be obtained from the "Société d?Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel"
: (the Operating Company, or SETE) for the publication of photos of the
: illuminated Eiffel Tower.
:
: For newer buildings, monuments, and the like, further copyright
: restrictions can apply outside the U.S. While U.S. federal law
: explicitly permits pictorial representations of copyrighted
: Architectural works without permission or license from the copyright
: holder (17 USC 120(a)), there is no such exemption in the Berne
: Convention.
:
: As in many other countries, if the photograph also includes
: identifiable images of people, further restrictions and laws come
: into play. This falls into the "don't take legal advice from
: random internet posters" category.
:
: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that could
happen here.

Bob

What happens if one changes all the twinkly lights
to a different colour?

"Irwell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:48:52 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
: In article , says...
:
: On 9/13/2011 4:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
:
: The objections to photographing the Eiffel tower are based on
: copyright.
:
: The current FAQ for the Eiffel tower reads:
:
: The views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free. Permission and rights
: must be obtained from the "Société d?Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel"
: (the Operating Company, or SETE) for the publication of photos of the
: illuminated Eiffel Tower.
:
: For newer buildings, monuments, and the like, further copyright
: restrictions can apply outside the U.S. While U.S. federal law
: explicitly permits pictorial representations of copyrighted
: Architectural works without permission or license from the copyright
: holder (17 USC 120(a)), there is no such exemption in the Berne
: Convention.
:
: As in many other countries, if the photograph also includes
: identifiable images of people, further restrictions and laws come
: into play. This falls into the "don't take legal advice from
: random internet posters" category.
:
: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's
freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in
the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that
could
happen here.

Bob

What happens if one changes all the twinkly lights
to a different colour?

Look up "derivative work".

--
Frank ess

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's
freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in
the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that
could
happen here.

Why not, isn't it the capitalists in France causing that problem? Seems to
me the US capitalists are far worse.

Trevor.

On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 14:11:00 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"Robert Coe" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's
freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in
the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that
could
happen here.

Why not, isn't it the capitalists in France causing that problem? Seems to
me the US capitalists are far worse.

It's the designers.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2011-12-04 19:11:00 -0800, "Trevor" said:


"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's
freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in
the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that
could
happen here.

Why not, isn't it the capitalists in France causing that problem? Seems to
me the US capitalists are far worse.

Trevor.

Just wait and see what the German capitalists have in mind for Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...wTO_story.html


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-12-04 19:11:00 -0800, "Trevor" said:
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"

: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's
freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in
the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that
could
happen here.

Why not, isn't it the capitalists in France causing that problem? Seems to
me the US capitalists are far worse.

Just wait and see what the German capitalists have in mind for Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...wTO_story.html

Start behaving more responsible? 'orrible. The poor Greek ...
imagine having to have money before spending it! It's the
end of the world --- and all that because of US banks.

-Wolfgang

On 12/8/11 2:29 PM, in article ,
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-12-04 19:11:00 -0800, "Trevor" said:
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"

: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's
freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in
the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that
could
happen here.

Why not, isn't it the capitalists in France causing that problem? Seems to
me the US capitalists are far worse.

Just wait and see what the German capitalists have in mind for Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...-criticism-for
-euro-approach/2011/12/04/gIQAZebwTO_story.html

Start behaving more responsible? 'orrible. The poor Greek ...
imagine having to have money before spending it! It's the
end of the world --- and all that because of US banks.

-Wolfgang

It's all Bush's Fault®...

On 12/8/2011 3:29 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 2011-12-04 19:11:00 -0800, said:
"Robert wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:00:57 -0500, "J.

: If you investigate I believe you will find that the copyright issue with
: the Eiffel Tower is not with regard to the "architectural work" but with
: regard to the lighting, which is regarded as a separate artistic work
: incorporating the tower as a component.

That's a distinction without a difference. It still restricts one's
freedom to
photograph the tower from a public space at night. Bad as things are in
the
U.S., with the capitalists in almost total control, I don't think that
could
happen here.

Why not, isn't it the capitalists in France causing that problem? Seems to
me the US capitalists are far worse.

Just wait and see what the German capitalists have in mind for Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...wTO_story.html

Start behaving more responsible? 'orrible. The poor Greek ...
imagine having to have money before spending it! It's the
end of the world --- and all that because of US banks.


Please explain, in clear English, with supporting facts, exactly why it
is the fault of the US banking system.


--
Peter