[interested_observer]

Interesting perspective....

• Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France... | Techdirt

[Ubuntu_user]

Man, this gets tedious.

[calsan]

I'm an architect - our work appears either in the background or as the subject of photos all the time without getting a commission. I say to chair designers: 'get over it'.
A photo of a chair isn't a copy of the chair because it's 2D. Unless the chair is a flat piece of paper, that is.

[Docrwm]

Merde!

[Bob from Aus]

Copyright in Australia has no restrictions on photographing anything three dimensional. That is you can photograph and publish a photo of a statue but not a painting as a painting and a photograph are both 2 dimensional.

[ofer4]

But if your photograph is moving, it once again becomes three-dimensional.

[Clicker]

soon we will all be snapping away with cameras that have no film or cards

[Raffwal]

Eiffel Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tower and its representations have long been in the public domain. However, a French court ruled, in June 1990, that a special lighting display on the tower in 1989, for the tower's 100th anniversary, was an "original visual creation" protected by copyright. The Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, upheld the ruling in March 1992.[39] The Société d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SETE) now considers any illumination of the tower to be under copyright.[40] As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries.
The imposition of copyright has been controversial. The Director of Documentation for what was then the Société nouvelle d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (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,[41] as well as hindering non-profit and semi-commercial publication of images of the tower. Besides, French doctrine and jurisprudence traditionally allow pictures incorporating a copyrighted work as long as their presence is incidental or accessory to the main represented subject,[42] a reasoning akin to the De minimis rule. Thus, SETE could not claim copyright on photographs or panoramas of Paris incorporating the lit tower.

[Docrwm]

Apparently the Court that just ruled on the chair case does not view "French doctrine" in the same way as the writer of the Wiki article:
"French doctrine and jurisprudence traditionally allow pictures incorporating a copyrighted work as long as their presence is incidental or accessory to the main represented subject,[42] a reasoning akin to the De minimis rule. Thus, SETE could not claim copyright on photographs or panoramas of Paris incorporating the lit tower."

42 ="La représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité"; Cass. 1re civ. 4 juillet 1995. Christophe Caron, Droit d'auteur et droits voisins, Litec, 2006, §365.

[Wheatfield]

This will put a chill of commercial photography in France. Even wedding photography will be problematic. Securing permission from the designer of the dress, the shoes, any jewelry, the designer of the tuxedo, wrist watches, etc, will all be required, since the wedding photographer is publishing his photos by selling them to the client.

[monochrome]

God has a on everything so we are done.

[Colbyt]

I'm an architect - our work appears either in the background or as the subject of photos all the time without getting a commission. I say to chair designers: 'get over it'.
A photo of a chair isn't a copy of the chair because it's 2D. Unless the chair is a flat piece of paper, that is.

Copyright in Australia has no restrictions on photographing anything three dimensional. That is you can photograph and publish a photo of a statue but not a painting as a painting and a photograph are both 2 dimensional.

Two very valid slightly differing points of view. Either one of which makes a lot more sense. This whole issue isn't going away and it is all about greed.

[BigDave]

But if your photograph is moving, it once again becomes three-dimensional.

Wrong, a moving object when photographed is still two dimensional, there is no physical depth to the image, only height and width. It does not even include the fourth dimension, time, unless it is part of a motion image (movie or TV). Even then, the "photograph" is not moving as we know they are all separate still images linked together to give the appearance of movement!

Regards,

[BigDave]

Interesting perspective....

• Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France... | Techdirt

Interesting, so if you actually purchased the chair, outright owned it, you do not have the rights to photograph it? A song can be played and duplicated via recordings over and over again, but a physical object is not reproducible, only individual copies of it can be made (each of which is slightly different in some way).

Everyone wants residuals. So they will find that they will no longer get something that propelled them to popularity in the first place, public exposure! And the Eiffel Tower will become a rusting hulk, as the rest of the world will not care if it exists (if I do not see it, it does not exist).

What short sightedness and stupidity. The French society keeps spinning into insignificance, and they do nothing to stop it!

Bon Chance!

[simico]

This will put a chill of commercial photography in France. Even wedding photography will be problematic. Securing permission from the designer of the dress, the shoes, any jewelry, the designer of the tuxedo, wrist watches, etc, will all be required, since the wedding photographer is publishing his photos by selling them to the client.

Nude weddings for the win!!