Property releases?

[raptorman]

If something is a trademarked or copyrighted work (such as, believe it or not, the Eiffel Tower), you may not use a picture taken of the item for commercial purpose without a signed release from the trademark holder.

In your barn/horse situation... you're totally fine. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't think TWICE about selling anything from such a collection and I'd laugh my ass off at anyone who got weird and decided to sue me, and that's after getting over the shock of even having an image that warranted enough attention to have some random person notice I snapped a shot of their barn.

Seriously. Don't worry about it.

Some nitpicking, but the Eiffel Tower is not copyrighted anymore, the copyright expired 70 years after the death of the author. The problem right now is the lighting display that's copyrighted.

More important is that in several European countries (France, Italy, Belgium...) most buildings are copyrighted and you just can't take pictures of them and use them for commercial purposes without permission of the copyrightholder. It doesn't matter whether it is a barn in the countryside or a famous building. Almost all copyrightholders don't care and sueing will never cross their mind. You might just happen to take a picture though of a building where the copyright belongs to someone sue-happy like (the successors of) Andre Waterkeyn (Atomium) and then you have a problem as you'll most likely lose the case.

 

[skieur]

If something is a trademarked or copyrighted work (such as, believe it or not, the Eiffel Tower), you may not use a picture taken of the item for commercial purpose without a signed release from the trademark holder.

In your barn/horse situation... you're totally fine. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't think TWICE about selling anything from such a collection and I'd laugh my ass off at anyone who got weird and decided to sue me, and that's after getting over the shock of even having an image that warranted enough attention to have some random person notice I snapped a shot of their barn.

Seriously. Don't worry about it.

Some nitpicking, but the Eiffel Tower is not copyrighted anymore, the copyright expired 70 years after the death of the author. The problem right now is the lighting display that's copyrighted.

More important is that in several European countries (France, Italy, Belgium...) most buildings are copyrighted and you just can't take pictures of them and use them for commercial purposes without permission of the copyrightholder. It doesn't matter whether it is a barn in the countryside or a famous building. Almost all copyrightholders don't care and sueing will never cross their mind. You might just happen to take a picture though of a building where the copyright belongs to someone sue-happy like (the successors of) Andre Waterkeyn (Atomium) and then you have a problem as you'll most likely lose the case.

The Eiffel Tower lighting display is NOT copyrightable, whether they would like it to be or not. To be copyrightable the work MUST be in a PERMANENT and SUBSTANTIVE form, and that does NOT apply to any light display.

Photography does NOT violate any building copyright, so there are no special rules related to shooting such buildings. It is written in such laws.

skieur

 

[raptorman]

The Eiffel Tower lighting display is NOT copyrightable, whether they would like it to be or not. To be copyrightable the work MUST be in a PERMANENT and SUBSTANTIVE form, and that does NOT apply to any light display.

Photography does NOT violate any building copyright, so there are no special rules related to shooting such buildings. It is written in such laws.

skieur

I don't want to be rude, but what's your experience on copyright law and intellectual property law in Europe, or even with law in general?

Under Belgian, French, Italian... law a light display is copyrightable. For a work to be copyrightable it should has an original (not in the "never done before" meaning though) shape and a tangible shape. What does not matter at all is how long it lasts, whether it's finished, whether it's new, whether it has any artistic value... Copyright law protects a lot (for some people too much) and is therefor often called a safety net for when you can't get any other IP right on your creation.

Photography does violate the rights of the copyrightholder. One of his exclusive rights is the right of reproduction (just to give an example on how broad reproduction is, your webbrowser caching a picture from TPF is considered a reproduction, although one of the exceptions where it's allowed). A photo is considered a reproduction (there exists many jurisprudence that confirms this) and therefor you need permission of the copyrightholder (there are exceptions, but none that say you can use the picture of a copyrighted building for commercial purposes. Another example of an allowed reproduction is for personal use, like a photo-album)

 

[skieur]

The Eiffel Tower lighting display is NOT copyrightable, whether they would like it to be or not. To be copyrightable the work MUST be in a PERMANENT and SUBSTANTIVE form, and that does NOT apply to any light display.

Photography does NOT violate any building copyright, so there are no special rules related to shooting such buildings. It is written in such laws.

skieur

I don't want to be rude, but what's your experience on copyright law and intellectual property law in Europe, or even with law in general?

Under Belgian, French, Italian... law a light display is copyrightable. For a work to be copyrightable it should has an original (not in the "never done before" meaning though) shape and a tangible shape. What does not matter at all is how long it lasts, whether it's finished, whether it's new, whether it has any artistic value... Copyright law protects a lot (for some people too much) and is therefor often called a safety net for when you can't get any other IP right on your creation.

Photography does violate the rights of the copyrightholder. One of his exclusive rights is the right of reproduction (just to give an example on how broad reproduction is, your webbrowser caching a picture from TPF is considered a reproduction, although one of the exceptions where it's allowed). A photo is considered a reproduction (there exists many jurisprudence that confirms this) and therefor you need permission of the copyrightholder (there are exceptions, but none that say you can use the picture of a copyrighted building for commercial purposes. Another example of an allowed reproduction is for personal use, like a photo-album)

The Berne Copyright Convention and the Copyright laws of various countries uniformly define a "work" as the expression of an idea in "fixed form". A light display is not a fixed form. It is that simple.

Building copyrights refer to architectural design and violating the copyright on a building means physically reproducing the design in another building.
There is an exemption in building copyright law that indicates specifically that photography does not violate any architectural copyright. I have read the laws and it is there and specific.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Some more exceptions for photographing architectural works and publicly displayed sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship
Copyright Act:

32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright...

(b) for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work

(i) an architectural work, provided the copy is not in the nature of an architectural drawing or plan, or

(ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building;

The Canadian act, but since we are part of the Berne Convention, it is the same in the U.S. and other countries.

skieur

 

[Exhibiter]

skieur, thank you very much for response. I had not thought of it that way and it does make sense.

We all need to be careful of the rights we have lest we lose them.

 

[manaheim]

From wikipedia...

"
Images of the tower have long been in the public domain; however, in 2003 SNTE (Société nouvelle d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel) installed a new lighting display on the tower. The effect was to put any night-time image of the tower and its lighting display under copyright. As a result, it was no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in some countries.[24][25]
The imposition of copyright has been controversial. The Director of Documentation for SNTE, Stéphane Dieu, commented in January 2005, "It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't approve." However, it also potentially has the effect of prohibiting tourist photographs of the tower at night from being published[26] as well as hindering non profit and semi-commercial publication of images of the tower.
In a recent[citation needed] decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that copyright could not be claimed over images including a copyrighted building if the photograph encompassed a larger area. This seems to indicate that SNTE cannot claim copyright on photographs of Paris incorporating the lit tower.
In some jurisdictions, this claim of copyright is explicitly disallowed. For instance Irish copyright law, works "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public" may be freely included in visual reproductions[27]; similar laws exist in Germany (see Panoramafreiheit)."

Eiffel Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jon_Are]

so, getting up in a tree with a 400mm lens to take pictures of the ladies in the girl's shower... bad.

Damn.

 

[manaheim]

so, getting up in a tree with a 400mm lens to take pictures of the ladies in the girl's shower... bad.

Damn.

 

[raptorman]

Some more exceptions for photographing architectural works and publicly displayed sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship
Copyright Act:

32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright...

(b) for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work

(i) an architectural work, provided the copy is not in the nature of an architectural drawing or plan, or

(ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building;

The Canadian act, but since we are part of the Berne Convention, it is the same in the U.S. and other countries.

skieur

There's a saying overhere that goes like this: there's only one thing worse then a lawyer and that's a wannabe lawyer. You can't imagine how many times people lose money or screw up due to advise from someone who thinks he knows the law. We see it every week... Wouldn't you feel bad if people get sued and lose the case because they followed your advise?

Now back on topic, first a basic law principle:
It's not because countries are part of a convention that all law regarding the subject of the convention is the same in all the countries. This can be easily demonstrated by the Berne convention:

art. 2 (4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the protection to be granted to official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature, and to official translations of such texts.

One country will go for protection A, another for protection B...

art. 2 (2) It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form.

This is interesting for this discussion as it proves your "fixed form" point wrong. The principle is that you get protection for fixed form and non-fixed from creations, the exception is that countries can decide to not protect work that hasn't some material form. Even in these countries it'll be up for discussion whether a light display is considered material or not.

Now we'll have a look at European copyright law (Directive 2001/29):

Article 2

Reproduction right

Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:

(a) for authors, of their works;

Notice here the "by any means and in any form": you don't have to build the Eiffel Tower yourself to have a reproduction. Paintings, photos... are all reproductions.

Article 5

Exceptions and limitations

2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:

(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

Again, the rule is that it's not allowed, the exception (which should be written in law) is that it is allowed. Such a law does exist in the UK, Germany and a couple of other countries. It does not exist in Belgium, France, Italy and a couple of other countries. An interesting sidenote is that in Belgium and France your picture can contain a copyrighted building, if it's only a marginal part of your picture (example: a picture just containing the Eiffel Tower is not allowed, a skyline of Paris that includes the Eiffel Tower as a small part of it is allowed)

I hope this clears up a couple of things for the people reading this thread.

One last word of advise, excersise your right when you have one, not when you think you have one. Because you can't lose a right you don't have, you can only get in troubles.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ I seriously hope you're a lawyer, otherwise you just maimed yourself with the same hammer you just bashed skieur with.