The lighting is copyrighted, so it’s technically copyright infringement. They only seem to care if you do it in a professional/commercial capacity though.
Architecture is an artistic medium, so it’s subject to copyright. It gets a little complicated though, because this wasn’t legally decided until the latter half of the 20th century.
Does the architect hold the copyright of a photograph that a photographer has taken though?
I can see it getting murky quickly. What if the building is in frame, but is not the focus of the photograph. Can the architect still claim copyright infringement on that particular photo?
The lighting is copyrighted, so it’s technically copyright infringement. They only seem to care if you do it in a professional/commercial capacity though.
I’m sorry, fucking what?
How can lighting, or the sight of something be copyright?
Fuck what wonderful captialistic hellscape we live in
Architecture is an artistic medium, so it’s subject to copyright. It gets a little complicated though, because this wasn’t legally decided until the latter half of the 20th century.
While architecture could be copyrighted. Public buildings are excluded from that for obvious reasons. This includes the eifel tower.
TL;DR: The light show is considered a separate artistic creation and the Eiffel Tower’s management company holds the copyright.
Does the architect hold the copyright of a photograph that a photographer has taken though?
I can see it getting murky quickly. What if the building is in frame, but is not the focus of the photograph. Can the architect still claim copyright infringement on that particular photo?
I’ll start obeying French law when they extradite Roman Polanski
He’s not in France, so that’s tricky.