ChristineBetts

Apparently at night the light’s are trademarked or something(strange) but daytime is ok. When you see so many blatant violations of copyright here and are still here it makes you think, why.

Have a look through these pages and see how many might have to go Eiffel Tower

ah tell em 2 get f%cked!!!!

OK, I’m seriously confused here but one thing is probably true: nobody inside Red Bubble could have owned the copyright for God’s sky. But a light show can be owned? I guess there are a lot of digital cameras that are promoting plagiarism by having “fireworks” and “nighttime sky” presets! LMAO! Better get them recalled before someone sues all those companies and deepens the worldwide recession.

I understand that you had to hide the image but would you please send me a copy? If so, Bmail me and you’ll get a response with my email addy. I would LOVE to see what sort of public display of a world renouned structure can be called anything except free to the public. Bizarre to the extreme in my humble opinion.

they can kiss my shiny ass, who ever ‘they’ is… i don’t recall any signs saying “no nighttime photography.” of course i was drunk and don’t read French, so there…

Aloha Christine,

I googled eiffel tower light show and received 135,000 results.
On the first page:
Results 1 – 10 of about 748,000

I see many many links.
I opened the first one, which appears to be genuine and safe…
Tour Eiffel – Illuminating the Tower

There are truly some extraordinarily beautiful images on their website!
Okay, back to what what we are discussing ( I haven’t seen your image. I am simply trying to help you answer your question)

I took the search one step further and added the word copyright to the search
and found this information on Wikipedia – Eiffel Tower
It is a fascinating read.

If you scroll down you will see Image copyright claims which states:
“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

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 published²⁶ 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. In 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]

And lower on the page you will see the link for official website of Eiffel Tower – english version

I entered photograph copyright into the search on the home page and found this:

The ‘birth certificate’ identity card for the tower is interesting

still looking…...

The Eiffel Tower as a World Monument is a fascinating page

Still have found nothing on copyright….

Okay, so I removed the word ‘photograph’ and entered only the word ‘copyright’ in the search…..
and found this

Copyright search results Eiffel Tower
Are we allowed to publish photos of the Eiffel Tower?

Here it states: “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 SETE.”
When you click on Learn about the conditions and terms when using an image of the Eiffel Tower when lighted

it takes you to an outlook page where you may email your inquiry.

All that is my complimentary research for you Christine. I hope it helps.

Aloha e Malama pono,

Sharon

I reckon publish but don’t sell should be ok. Who complained, was it an RB staffer or from an external source?

Mahalo sweetheart. I saw your journal in the queue when I was moderating one of my groups, and thought I would try to help. I learned something too, I didn’t know the copyright existed on the light show before I searched for it. So will you turn it on for viewing only, I would love to see it!

omg, Sharon. I’ve never met anyone more anal retentive than I* am. And a *FEMALE? I’d type my address right here but the stream of honeys ringing my doorbell would be deafening to my neighbours in adjacent states. Just say “yes” now and I’ll buy the ring & book the vacation in Fiji.

I am stunned to read what you’d researched. The lighting of Sacramento’s Tower Bridge is occasionally changed. Odds are it’s modifications are contacted out; the city does that for many public art displays. If they create a “société nouvelle,” they can STOP me from photographing the single most distinctive icon of the city – the city I pay taxes to for maintenance of just the physical structure of the bridge??? >:-(

1984 seems to keep coming back like in Groundhog Day.

Could be but it has been over 60 minutes and she hasn’t bit on my offer yet. Damn.

I sorta like worms, tho. Entire cans of them would be fun to have hanging about. How about can’o’slugs instead? NOBODY’d like that and the worms can still be fun without being glued to all the bummer stuff?

Oppressed Worms For Liberty! (acronym pronounced like “awful”, which is quite similar to the entire organizational concept)

PS Are you sure this would be the FIRST Red Bubble wedding proposal?? Sharon!!! Hurry up before someone else snatches the glory!!!!!! :-/

LMAO! You’re probably right but pointing it out means you’re as twisted as I am. :-D

by the way ‘Jan’ is not the person who raised this issue… Not Happy Jan is a saying in Australia…

You can show your picture, but not have it for sale.
The light show is copyrighted by the sponsors of the lights.
You can apply for a special licence/permit to put the pic up for sale but it will probably cost you more than you will make.

Hi Christine, do one really need crap like this, as if there isn’t enough other issues! Put it behind you, don’t spend to much time on things we can’t change! Doesn’t make it less upsetting I know, just hate it when something blows up like this and no one else seems to understand the issue except the person that started the nonsense! Have a good week, see you Wednesday!

christine.
your dilemma is yet another example of the commoditization of everything everywhere. I am saddened for you. I have been victim to this sort of mindbogglingly paranoid persecution in several instances myself. Usually being ‘escorted’ from places. The scary thing is we all accept it (as Chante above is advocating). We grumble, we rant online (I’ve ranted this many times) but in the end, we let them get away with it. The ‘them’ in question is not redbubble of course, They’re hands are tied. It’s scumbag lawyers, agents and marketing weasels and the like who know nothing about art except how to exploit it. They’re the ones creating this greed and paranoia. I can’t take a picture of a building. From a public sidewalk?? Can I paint it? Can I describe it in a story? If the architect of a building didn’t make enough money off his design in the first place, he really should work on his bargaining skills.
I could go on and I think we’re all aware that this is beyond ‘copyright’ in many instances, but I digress. That’s another rant entirely.

(I believe ‘commoditization’ in the first sentance is not actually a word yet. According to spellcheck. Therefore I am hereby claiming copyright to it. Anyone using the word either in print, spoken or in thought will be subject to applicable law, persecution or firing squad in relation to local customs and acceptance levels)

Your response to this is very odd, as a visual artist you of all people should respect and be prepared to defend the copyright of another visual artist, in this case the designer of the lighting display, who has as much right to copyright protection as you do.

In response to starvingartist: I follow your comment up to some point. If christine would build an eiffeltower in her backyard or even put the same lighting display on her house. But a picture is a different thing. Your idea makes the world stand still. If you take it to that level. I assume french people pay alot of taxes that go to the eiffeltowerfoundation so i put the image and place into public domain. A picture of that can never be copyrightproof.

I recieved the same email from redbubble today about my picture of the eiffel tower at night. I’ve taken down the option to buy it, hoping they’ll still leave it up. I think someone has nothing better to do with their time then surf redbubble and report pictures. I sent an email to redbubble asking why they singled me out and theyreplied that they rely on members to report things. But I think if they are going to take down one picture, then they need to take down ALL the pictures in question and not allow some to continue selling them.

Hi Christine.
You may be interested in reading This.
It shows what other websites do for their members.

Christine - Sydney’s Opera House and Harbour Bridge, even the trees in Centennial Park, have nominal (lawyerspeak: just try me) copyright protection. Fortunately for us photographers, however, the law might might be an ass but is not a complete dickhead - even in France. The guy who put the lights on the Eiffel Tower has been paid. Those lights were put there to be seen. Those who see the lights are not breaching copyright. Those who record what they have seen are not breaching copyright. Those who display what they have recorded are not breaching copyright. The only possible if-and-but is whether you have the right to SELL what you have recorded. It would be good to see that tested - here or in France - but obviously we don’t expect you to do that for us. However you most certainly have the right to post your wonderful image on RedBubble (with the tag Not For SALE). You also have the right to be deeply pissed off if RedBubble suggest otherwise. Good luck!

In Scotland you are only allowed to keep one copy, of any photos of any National Trust Properties and Heritage sites,on one hard drive ,and you would need to buy a licence to if you wanted to use it or sell it ,but I think because its charity based that they have to make their own money first…..x….which is fair….but you cant even take a pic of the land….you still need permission from owners or trust…...xxx….You can show it for research ,teaching purposes….......x

You are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo busted, KreddibleTrout: your word is in the dictionary already so you now owe both usage fees and plagiarism fines. >:-) And since we all know who owns the copyrights, please make your check out to: Dumb-asses Of Planet Earth and the correct people (or organization) will be able to deposit it immediately. Thank you.

This is the only warning you will receive. Failure to comply will mean immediate assimilation….

I think that peoples who own the rights to their physical property, such as Indigenous American Indians, own a right to the images of them. Shooting the people themselves is considered sacrilegious to many of them. But that is their property, not the light around it. The central issue with the Eiffel Tower is the lighting display’s light at night. The display itself isn’t an issue or you’d NEVER be able to shoot the Tower because the lights are there even when not lit. However, the waves of radiant energy the physical lights emanate can NOT be owned by man. If a cloud is seeded and rain falls from it, can the cloud seeder copyright the freakin RAINBOW? You know how many times I put up a lawn sprinkler and created a tiny rainbow? Could I own all tiny rainbows created by RainBird Sprinkler Systems worldwide?

Again, this entire concept of ownership is some of the most asinine BS a human being can create and attempt to inflict upon another human.

StarvingArtist, please post with your response to what I’ve said. If you’ve got a convincing argument, I’ll gladly stand corrected because I too am a starving artist who strives to respect and protect other artists. But without some such convincing argument, I’m afraid I’m going to have to remain with the majority opinion here: there’s no copyright infringement enforceable by anyone but God (and He’s not accepting payment!) :-D

PS Those paintings will rock my world, especially if the self-righteous twits in France claim ownership to your freakin HANDS!!!

The Germans and French have such a colourful history it’s no wonder the French “surrendered” to them in this issue as well. Richard, this is indicative of “other websites”. This is indicative of French primal fear of that particular one. German artists are to be greatly feared.

Bbbbbrrruuuuuuahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

@Lenny La Rue, IPA, my argument is simple. If I as a creator of works wish to have the protection for my creative works that the law provides, then I have to honour and respect the rights afforded other creative works. Which I do. If you dont agree with copyright and moral rights protection, then I assume you are also happy to not only give your works away by choice, but also to have them used without your permission?

@John Peel, re your comments about copyright protection of various Sydney landmarks, I dont believe that’s correct. Australia does not have copyright laws or privacy laws for that matter that afford protection for anything that can be photographed from public property(land). What the Opera House does control are images taken from it’s land, which is a fairly small area. In addition the Sydney Foreshore Authority does require permits and fees for commercial photography activities on land it controls. The Sydney Harbour Authority the same for commercial photography/filming on the harbour.But these are not the only places you can photograph the Opera House or Harbour Bridge from. The other issue as it applies to the Opera House relates to Trade Practices law, if someone uses an image of the Opera House in a way that implies endorsement or association with the Opera House. For example a paint company running a campaign featuring a photo of the Opera House for which they have not obtained an agreement for, that implies by association that their paint is used on the Opera House, but this has nothing to do with copyright law.

Fair enough, starvingartist. You are clearly much better informed than I am, although a recent unhappy experience with a stock photo agency suggests those landmarks really do enjoy commercial protection, from anywhere. But what you have described also illustrates why the lines in this area can get so blurred. I can take a picture of the Opera House sails from the front steps, without a permit, but not if it’s for commercial purposes. I can take an almost identical picture from 100 metres further south and sell it on RB. And what is commercial photography in these “protected” places? You have to have a permit to use Centennial park for commercial photography or filming. But that does stop me taking a shot, without a permit, of a pelican in the middle of one of its ponds, then selling it a few years later at an exhibition ? Or taking a news photograph in the same area and selling it to the local paper? Quite understandable is the blanket ban on professional photography of any sort, without a permit, in, say, the Uluru-Katatjuta National Park, because that is for the protection of sites of immense cultural and spiritual significance to the Anangu people. Do the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge, the Eiffel Tower (with or without lights) or a rather badly maintained city park really warrant or deserve the same treatment ? As a writer and photographer, of course I regard copyright protection as absolutely essential for my one-off creations. But if one of my images (please, please…) ends up as a 40-foot poster on the side of a public building, then all are welcome to record it and the building and sell the results. I would have been paid for the poster, knowing where it was going, The Eiffel Tower lighting genius should be no different.

I wasn’t photographing the lights… I was photographing the tower. there just happened to be these audacious lights all over it.

in the end, artists who will only share their art if it benefits them financially sadden me.

I agree. I’m hoping to and have made it benefit me financially. That’s not what I mean, I said folks who only do things for money are weak. I’m not saying the Eiffel tower guy is, I haven’t looked into this whole thing enough to know where he actually stands. But I’ll tell you something, the Eiffel tower guy… probably got a huge whack of cash for the installation to begin with. Probably a shit load. Poor guy!
Job done.
Next.

The greed that backs it all is what hurts me.
I’m not against copyrighting, within reason. I disagree with someone using my photos to sell their shit, but if someone asks me nice, I might give them one to hang on their wall. You weren’t going to sell Nikes with your photo, you were gonna maybe make a few bucks taking a picture of one of the most photographed things on the planet.
Copyright is necessary, within reason.
But there are patents (copyrights) on food.
Not coka-cola.
not the colonel’s secret spices.
but rice.
and wheat.
And genes.
And medicine that might actually help someone to stay alive.
That’s the extent to where this stuff leads. And it’s wrong.
I’m not advocating stealing peoples art, their passion, their blood. But if I make a few bucks selling a photo of a Winston Churchill statue, give me a break.

greed has taken the place of common sense.

I believe that the taxpayers in France should take all the pictures of this guy’s stuff they want and sell it as much as they can because a) he got paid. and b) the French people probably flipped the bill for it so TECHNICALLY they own it too.

just read a bit more about it and it seems (very minimal investigation here, citations may be needed) that it was partly a marketing scheme by the Parisian Authorities and partly a cash grab. They couldn’t copyright the tower as it’d been in the public domain before greed became the surreal thing it is today, so they copywrote the lights. I don’t even know if there was an ‘artist’ involved. some poor sap janitor should be getting the royalties and to him, he may deserve them.

this stuff is too much. I’m going to bed and in the morning I’m going to burn & then bury my camera for soon there’ll be little left to legally photograph anyway. I may jump on the ground a bit too.

Christine, you’ve done us all a mega favour by starting this debate. I think we are now a little wiser. And I would like to think almost all of us are now agreed: if someone’s been fully and properly paid for their work (Monsieur Eiffel Tower illuminator, this DOES include you) in the knowledge that their creation is going to be displayed in the most public of public places, then they should suck on it if people like your good self take pictures of their creations (I was about so say erections…) and do with them what they will. Good Luck and very best wishes.

now… taking pictures of people’s erections is an entirely different can of worms. pun intended.

and Lenny La Rue… they’ll get that word out of my cold dead hands!
I OWN EVERYTHING IN MY PRESENCE! IT IS MY RIGHT! I SHALL PROFIT!

Aloha Christine, congratulations on your feature in Impressionist Art

Well they removed it! Even though I hid it from view and removed it from sale. this makes me so sad. It’s not hard to feel victimised – that shot was my most viewed image and commented on…and I also have two other shots of the tower in colour, that are still on my site… I love redbubble and have been a very active member, entering challenges (even though I hardly ever get anywhere…)co-hosting groups… I did everything they said and they still removed it. :( beware folks…. and still there are images of the tower in lights on this site. I hope the person who dobbed me in (that is an australian term for ratting) realises that karma is karma, baby!

Yes it is ridiculous and a real shame. here is article that explains it.

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed

explained in simple terms that even I can understand!! thanks to Susan Grissom.
and I think that might be case closed…

Christine, I’m sorry for you to become another victim in this copyright frenzy. Actually I knew of the copyright restrictions of the Eiffel Tower and the Sydney Opera etc. I have asked about the issue in the Sdyney Opera group here on RB with little response. Seems no one in Australia or on RB cares about the hundreds of images of the Opera house for sale. I think I will contact the RB staff so they will put up a list of places and monuments we are not allowed to display and sell on RB. I think it’s their job…

@Walter Quirtmair, there is a discussion re the Opera House above, but in a nutshell, the Opera House is not copyright protected.

All National park type images would legally require permits to sell here. The Opera House is not copyright protected but you do require a permit to shoot around the Sydney foreshore area for commercial purposes(RB). Most know about Uluru/Kata Tjuta but don’t seem to care. RB won’t blanket ban anything here as that would take time and effort. Just pick a super hero and type that into the search and see how many trademarked works are being sold. Lots of these are on T’s one of their big selling items and has been brought up in the forums as long as I have been here but they are still here. As for why you were singled out? Bad luck of the draw.

Thanks for that reply, starving artist. I find that people’s distinctions between what is and is not acceptable may or may not be commonly acceptable to mankind. Everything I do can be called “my art” but everything I do publicly cannot be stricken from the public’s choice to document it.

I guess it wouldn’t be legal to photograph the Tower for the news if a terrorist was climbing it at night and the lights were lit.

My copyrighted Organ Prelude #1 was used – without my knowledge or permission – as the main theme in the movie Independence Day. I’ve been exactly where you mention. Personally, I was very happy about it because it is easily proven to be my composition but I didn’t have to go through any of the Hollywood crap to get it heard by millions. Is it fair it was used? No. Was it legal? Nope. Do I care about my rights? 100% Is there a means for me to enforce my rights regarding my composition? Yes and George Harrison found out about it the hard way.

But the “rights” regarding various aspects of society are not always fair. I’d the right to treat my wife as in inferior in Saudi Arabia. I’d have the right to “circumsize” (by sexual mutilation) my daughter in some places in Africa. I’d have the right to cane (beat) a stranger for spitting out gum on the ground in some island countries. The death penalty was applied to the kid who fell in flowers while visiting a place where the “law” allowed it! (Of course that was on Star Trek but the same principle applies) :-D Would you support “rights” such as these if they were applied to you as a female or ignorant guest?

There comes a time when ‘the good of the many outweighs the good of the few’ (also borrowed from Star Trek but….well, you know). ‘The good of the many’ is clearly ignored by making laws and rules contrary to societal norms and mores. And sometimes honouring those laws and rules is immoral or I’d be in chains as a slave at this very minute.

I have also been hit by my own version of companies or agencies with too much funding and too little sense. I had to remove all my photos that had anything related to a phrase used to advertise Milk in California. Can you believe that…the California Milk board was threatened by my photos of Cows…like your photo of the Tower…it’s a ridiculous issue that you have to comply with because unlike them we don’t have lawyers to protect our interests. So silly it makes me sick! I agreew with copywrite protection but it’s getting to the point where darn near everything you might write, say or take a photo of is copywrited in some way. There should be limits of some sort to keep this from going to the point where you can’t get up in the morning without violating a copywrite law.

I just finished reading a travel memoir and can you believe it?? the heroine ends up dating the extremely wealthy nieghbour in the south of france…and his company made all the lights for the Eiffel Tower! hehehe…

Just letting you know that you are not alone, I have just been notified by RedBubble that I have to remove or get permission for my tower shot too. I also have just done all the same searches that the above have suggested and have sent off an enquiry to Sete. Will let you know if I get a response from them. But as you did I did a search of eiffel tower night shots on the bubble and found dozens and dozens! I just hope that they get pinged too!!!

More power to you sticking it to the man!
Mine is actually only called “we all know where…” but, of course it does ‘eiffel tower’ and ‘night’ in the tags. I did note that the copyright bizzo only started in 2003 with the revamped light display so I wondered if the fact that my shot was taken in 2000 might get me off the hook. I have asked redbubble what they think about that but I guess if I really want an answer I will have to consult a copyright laywer – cos that wouldn’t be expensive at all!!!??? :) I didn’t say anything about my specific shot in my request to SETE but just asked for some general info and fees. I’m not actually holding my breath for a reply!
Anyway, all the best to you and I’ll keep you in the loop if I get anywhere. :)

Eiffel Tower: Repossessed
BY Fast Company

You need look no further than Mickey Mouse in the US, or Elvis in the UK, to understand how copyright, for better or worst, affects the marketplace. But while Disney resorted to legal means to get more life out Mickey, those that oversee the Eiffel Tower came up with something far more clever.

The Eiffel Tower’s likeness had long since been part of the public domain, when in 2003, it was abruptly repossessed by the city of Paris. That’s the year that the SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that.

As a result, it’s no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission. Technically, this applies even to amateurs. When I spoke to the Director of Documentation for SNTE, Stéphane Dieu, via phone last week, he assured me that SNTE wasn’t interested in prohibiting the publication of amateur photography on personal Web sites. “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,” said Mr. Dieu.

So while publishing nighttime photos of the Eiffel Tower may now be illegal, it isn’t all bad news for tourists; SNTE profits go back to the city of Paris, making it, hopefully, and even nicer place to visit.