Half as Interesting That's not necessarily the reason. In copyright there are two kinds of rights when it comes to a creation: commercial and moral (names in English may vary, since it's not my first language). The commercial right is the one you use to earn money out of your creation (you can allow people to use it with your permission) and the moral, is to give you credit (you can't give it to someone else). Therefore I think the people who has the commercial right of the design gave the photographer permission to take the picture of the tower at night.
Half as Interesting i have a question but i dont know if you have mentioned it or not heres my question: Is it legal to take a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night for personal use not commercial? If yes is it legal if I show my friends and people the Eiffel Tower at night? *PLS ANSWER*
What is strange about it is actually Eiffel tower is not copyrighted but actually the light installment itself in this case; the reason why you can take photo of it during day and there is no problem about it and it is ridiculous actually
This is why people hate copyrights. They started out as a very useful measure for intangible assets but then people abused them and have made a complete mockery out of them.
@@ace74909 I don’t think they meant it this way. If it’s a public building we should be able to take pictures of it day or night and even if the lights were installed recently those laws should apply since it’s on a public building. Building the same architecture should be where the copyright starts and ends.
Long story short, the tower itself's copyright has expired, but the lights that turn on at night were only installed in 1985, so their copyright is still active
Lawyer here. You don’t go to jail for copyright infringement. You also don’t go to jail - or get sued - for sharing your holiday photos, it’s only commercial use (sales, advertising etc)
@@markyaworski4358 you are right, typically you won't go to jail in most jurisdictions unless they can prove significant financial gain, such as typically seen in software piracy and resultant theft.
@@anujbahukhandi3266 Oddly, the guy I mentioned did not gain financially. He made copies of a disk that Microsoft gave away for free and gave them away.
@@jacobsmith4428 I dunno, sounds unrealistic saying:"not the same lights" cause they clearly specify that's Paris, what else could that be? On the other hand, I find extremely illegal what they did(IF they didn't pay to make the scene), cause they used Eiffel tower image to specificaly COMERCIAL USES, wich is explained in the video that THAT is, indeed, against copyright
It's quite prominently featured in Disney's Soarin' ride, as well (at least in Shanghai and Orlando, not sure about the other parks.) Disney presumably got a license for it.
Commercial use probably means they'll only go after people making large profits like a music artist. Courts would be flooded if they came after everyone
It isn't taking a pic of the tower at night that's illegal. It's taking a pic of the lights working and using that pic for commercial use, without compensating the artist, that's illegal.
I did a PowerPoint of the eiffel tower 2 years ago and i had a picture of it in the night AND showed it to my class 😂😂😂😂😂 damn it feels good to be a gangster
I'm french and never heard of this. Eiffel tower is filmed and photographed every day and every night by thousands of ppl/tourists. Plus with all the crime, the terrorism, and considering how full prisons are and how busy cops are.... there are approximately 0.00000001 chance to get in trouble for that. Only thing you risk doing that at night is being attacked by thugs for your camera.
Alltimeboxing you didn’t know lol? But yeah your right the chance is low that you’ll get in trouble for that but most people who take pics are mostly for private use. I’m sure it would be different if a Huge company took a photo without a license
As someone that owns a stage lighting business I can't believe that someone (and a millennial at that) finally gets it. Years of work and expense so some dumb vulture photographer can photograph my art and force me to buy it off them. Lighting rigs can cost more than the venue itself and Lampys are the most dedicated people in the venue even more dedicated than the stage performers themselves and everyone rips us off like some shit godamn charity!
Photographing the Eiffel Tower at night is not illegal at all. Any individual can take photos and share them on social networks. But the situation is different for professionals. The Eiffel Tower’s lighting and sparkling lights are protected by copyright, so professional use of images of the Eiffel Tower at night require prior authorization and may be subject to a fee. Professionals should therefore contact the Eiffel Tower's management company to learn about conditions for using the images depending on the case. - From the official website of eiffel tower.
So every time a copyright runs out, a new artist can go and draw a single new line on a painting and that will extend the copyright in their name until 70 years after their death.
I think it is incredibly silly because the lights do exactly follow the lines of the tower. It needed no creativity and just a bunch of electricians who aren't afraid of heights
@@patrikjansen7831 Does that mean the copyright is extended because a light requires replacement as it may no longer functions? 🤔 I know...sounds absurd, but I wouldn't put anything past the French government.
@LOLWHATBRO and to add on to that most if not all of their old classics are based on public domain stories anyway. The only think slightly original from Disney was Mickey mouse. They want to extend copyright so nobody can "steal" their work yet that's hownthey made their money in the first place.
It's absurd to copyright buildings. Not because they are not artistic works, but because it's impossible to stop people making picutres of them and uploading them, especially in the era when everyone is carrying a camera in their pocket.
basically the government want you to be their slaves,the whole modern copyright needs to be changed for the digital age but you people for some reason don't mind it.
It’s not about taking photos, it’s about if you make money off it. If you took professional photos of the Eiffel Tower to sell them, that’s when it’s an issue. I have photos of the Eiffel Tower at night. As mentioned in the video, it’s okay if it’s for PERSONAL use. So if you’re taking photos because you’re travelling, that’s totally fine!
I visited France on a school trip in 2000, and they had a sign on the Eifel Tower that said Ans2000. I always thought it made my pictures kind of look tacky, but now I think it's cool.
Hey, I love what you do and have watched all your videos. However as a french lawyer, I have to tell it is incorrect. You mentioned that the French copyright law has never been enforced with regard to the Eiffel tower. There is a reason for that. Basically what you explained is correct. French law prohibits commercial use of a copyrighted work without the author's authorisation. Therefore it is illegal to sell pictures of copyrighted material but there is a massive querk. Indeed the French cour de cassation (France hightest court) made it pretty clear that there are some exceptions. First, this law only applies when the copyrighted work is on the foreground. Thus, the photo of an aerial view of Paris is always perfectly fine since non of the work included are the center of the photo. You could open a shop selling photos of an aerial view of Paris and you'd be fine. The second exception, and the most relevant here is that in order for the law to apply, the copyrighted material has to be the topic of the support it is included in. Therefore a video including a picture of the pyramid of the louvre is fine when if are making a point about copyright law in France because the topic of the video is copyright law and the pyramid is just an illustration. However if your job is to sell photos of the Eiffel tower at night or any other copyrighted work without making any other point than "here is a photo of the monument" you will need the author's authorisation. That's why Shutterstock can't have a photo of the Eiffel tower at night. In fact case law on this topic is almost exclusively about postal cards. One easy test you can use to identify whether or not it is legal to show a monument is to imagine that you have photoshopped it out of your work. Then try to see whether or not your work has lost the essential of its value. In the case of a postal card featuring the Eiffel Tower at night, once you've taken away the monument, the card become worthless. Thus it is illegal. Same goes for stock photos, without the tower, it's just an empty night sky. However, this video is essentially the same with or without the Eiffel tower. It's still a video about copyright law in France. Therefore it is legal. You're not the only one to have made this mistake and last time I checked it was still on Wikipedia. In fact this is quite a fascinating story. I have ( or think I still have ) proofs that the Wikipedia article on this topic was used to write articles on other sites that were later added as sources to original Wikipedia article. This is a mechanism that has been studied or at least I have heard of that. I think you should make a video about it.
But then you can claim that the Eiffel Tower appears in the title of the video and thus it is the focus of this video and therefore illegal to show it.
Large Prison Dude: So what u here 4 man? Me: I took a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night... Large Prison Dude: *SHRIEKS LIKE A LITTLE GIRL AND RUNS AWAY IN FEAR AND TERROR*
Gosh, I love this old style of narration. Before Sam and every other creater decided they had to get super and unnaturally animated in order to keep my attention.
Copyright laws are sometimes some of the dumbest things in the world, a building IS public domain, copyrighting it should be limited to replicating the building by constructing an identical design, not to use its picture or video, that's insane, just like how insane it is to limit using music in a movie to copyright, a musical copyright should only apply to replicating it within the same medium, once it's become a cultural piece it's public domain and no one should have the right to stop people being influenced by it.
This sounds good, but isn't really true. Imagine you made a piece of music and someone used it in an insulting way in their movie without paying you for your work. Copyright protect for music is about 2 things: the melody and the sound recording. You can't use some else's sound recording in your work, unless its a derivative work (which legally is essentially a new work).
Imagine you create a symbol of peace, balance and harmony, then some crazy dictator decides to use it for his party without asking your permission, he commits one of the big mass murder in history, he brings the whole world into a global conflict to which he loses, and in the end the symbol you created becomes the emblem of evil and people forget its original purpose, and while there are still samples of the original symbol unrelated to said ductator, people can't dissociate them from him.
Why can't we charge the owners or creators of these buildings a fee if we don't like their buildings? They're cramming my Right to Panorama with unwanted results.
Copyright law is flawed, but not insane because it doesn't limit you until you try to make money off of the copyrighted work. That's the whole point of copyright: making sure the creator has the opportunity to profit from their own work. It's not about stopping the public from enjoying that work. Limiting copyright to only the medium of the work doesn't make sense either... Imagine if you wrote an amazing piece of music but nobody really gave it any recognition. Then, without your consent, it was used as the main theme in a multi million dollar Hollywood blockbuster and contributed to its huge success. Don't you think you should have a say in your piece's use? And shouldn't you see some return from its use?
It's possible to license the ability to use a copyrighted work so long as you agree to pay royalties to the to the creator and the creator knows fully how and when the work will be used.
•Gummy• It’s not that you can’t use it at all under commercial use you’d just have to give credit and get permission from the creator to do so and they might request that you pay them for use
Yea because someone put my house on sale with photos outside of the house and I said to that guy to delete it and guess what he did it.So it is posible you need some privacy you know=)
“Welcome to the gang kid! We’ve got stealing steve, murdering mike and crimes johnson” “What did crimes johnson do?” “He took photos of the eiffel tower at night”
Um... title is misleading. (like so many are). From the website of the Sociéte d'Exploitation de la tour Eiffel (they run the thing): Is it illegal to photograph the Tower at night? Photographing the Eiffel Tower at night is not illegal at all. Any individual can take photos and share them on social networks. But the situation is different for professionals. The Eiffel Tower’s lighting and sparkling lights are protected by copyright, so professional use of images of the Eiffel Tower at night require prior authorization and may be subject to a fee. Professionals should therefore contact the Eiffel Tower's management company to learn about conditions for using the images depending on the case.
100 percent agree. It should follow the same laws as photographing/videoing people which is that if it’s in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy then you should be allowed to do it. The Eiffel Tower is a massive building that you can see across Paris, there’s no expectation of privacy and therefore should be allowed to be photographed no matter what. Such a stupid law
Ryan Smith quit trying to promote your dead channel
ปีที่แล้ว +2
I actually have a copyright lawyer friend and I asked him about this after watching this video. He said yes the Eiffel Tower lights are copyrighted but that only applies for commercial use only any general public person using it for their own personal purposes is perfectly legal.
60 years are up: yay now I can take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night! (light breaks and has to be fixed) Oh well now we have to wait another 60 years
Wait so the copyright of the Eiffel Tower ended but because someone put lights on it reset? So we have to wait a lifetime and 70 years because someone put Christmas lights on a 100 year old structure. Okay then
It's not only possible, it's automatic. But don't think that just because you have copyright on something, that doesn't mean you can't infringe the copyright other people have (to elements of their work that are in your work) by distributing your own work.
Nope, Warner Bros. has many copyright attorneys just to obtain clearances and licences for their works. A small acquired independent film might have an image slip through the cracks but certainly not a summer blockbuster that predominately features this particular subject matter. Would going from sodium lighting to slightly different LED lighting create a new copyright? That is likely to happen, if it hasn't already. The designer of the 1985 lighting is likely retired, if not deceased. Resetting the copyright after 40 years is easier than waiting for the creator's original copyright to expire. I love the overt reference to Disney in the video. I am ok with corporations, but this copyright after death nonsense needs to stop. I have come to the conclusion that with everything in today's world, copyright should be viable for about 20 years, regardless of the creator's lifespan. The creators obviously do not benefit from their copyrights after death, but I do not necessarily believe in copyright until death either. I believe patents only last 19 years, and yet these same people and corporations can still work within that time frame. In exchange for a shorter copyright period, it would be more than fair to allow for much stricter enforcement and penalties to violators.
But there is also this thing called Fair Use and as long as your making a commentary and or education people on something like your doing its fair use and you are allowed to show the archetuctual works without blurring them. So you didn't need to blur them.
Yes that is correct If it is for educational purposes, not shown on social media sites, non profit, don't credit yourself, and specify the audience the picture will be shown to I think it will be allowed, But also remember there are tones of loop holes in the copy right system that can still be applicable to you are using the work and can result in a law suit of some sort.
As for the use of the pictures in this video. No you are incorrect because this video has ads therefor the channel gains profit off of people viewing it. In the scenario that this video didn't have ads you still wont be allowed to show the land marks because It can be considered an advert for this channel without the permission from the person(s) that holds the copyright.
In Canada, fair use exception to copyright allows one to use it even in commercial purposes of it is for teaching, research, and private studies. Not sure about France and won't be surprised if they didn't have corresponding laws.
But that's in US Copyright law. Not every country has fair use. We generally go by US copyright law on the web because most companies servers/data centers reside in the US and are subject to those laws.
+ThePulmentinum Two problems with your argument. 1. Copyright law is completely different from trademark law and patent law. Patent law covers inventions and functionality. Trademark law covers branding. Copyright law covers art and other creative works. 2. Copyright is implicit and opt-out, unlike Trademarks and Patents which are explicit and opt-in. If you create and publish a copyrightable work, you automatically have ownership and usage rights of that work regardless of whether you registered it or not unless you explicitly make it public domain. As such, technically a Christmas light display is owned by whoever set it up. That being said, another difference between copyright and trademarks/patents is that you are not forced to actively defend your copyright should it be infringed. You have full control of any copyrighted material you own - including the ability to give people permission to use said copyrighted material and the ability to revoke that permission at any point. If you decide not to go after someone for an infringement, you've given that person defacto permission until you decide otherwise. And since it would be a dick move to sue someone over incidental Christmas lights, that's generally the course of action most people take. This also means that you can sue Joe Newbie over an infringement but then allow John Smith to get away with it - maybe John Smith is a good friend of yours, or Joe Newbie was using your work with malicious intent.
The... lights? The lighting? That's a copyrighted work? If I'm in France, can I take a picture of someone else's installed lightbulb and get sued then?
If the music is on youtube or soundcloud, clearly the creator is okay with it. If it keeps getting deleted off of your playlist and the only versions left are high pitched / nightcore, obviously they're having a fit with the copyright and you shouldn't download the music that the creators clearly don't want to give out for free.
Did you see the video ? It has never been enforced plenty of people film things regularly there and nobody went to jail, it's just a funny laughable fact.
Because the lights are an artist's creation. Most people don't steal movies, songs, books. Well, that's the same. And yes, copyright laws in France are restrictive. Because we care about intellectual and artistic property. And it's just okay. You obviously have the right to take pictures and record videos of the Eiffel tower for yourself. Just don't broadcast or put anything on social medias for *commercial* use (because you're not a professional photographer who's been authorized to do so). That includes YT vlogs I suppose, if your video gets monetized... Seriously, have you watched the video?
Well, technically, copyright is one thing, enforceability is another. Technically, you can upload a photo while in country that supports all the freedom of panorama things, and, provided the photo is both uploaded and hosted in a server in such country, it'd be perfectly legal in the laws of that country. The same is true for photos taken by imaging satellites, since as any airship they're governed by the law of their owner residence and you aren't even one foot in France while taking such photo.
Interesting. I looked up the Eiffel Tower on a commercial stock image site, and from a brief sample the ones with the lights on say they're for editorial use only. Those with the lights off have no such warning.
Yeah, because pictures intended for editorial purposes like newspapers or magazines are exempt from copyright and often privacy laws. It would still be possible to have stock images of the Eiffel tower at night intended for commercial use but the photographers would have to show that they have the permission (usually at a cost) to be able to have it on the site.
Guard: Hey! Taking pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night is illegal. Me: I'm taking a picture of a light bulb on the Eiffel tower during the day. Guard: Oh, okay
To clarify, just because you can find an image on Google doesn't mean it's legal. This law is very loosly enforced but still is a law.
Half as Interesting Lol
They probably care so much
Half as Interesting
#46 trending in singapore
*clap clap clap*
Half as Interesting That's not necessarily the reason. In copyright there are two kinds of rights when it comes to a creation: commercial and moral (names in English may vary, since it's not my first language). The commercial right is the one you use to earn money out of your creation (you can allow people to use it with your permission) and the moral, is to give you credit (you can't give it to someone else). Therefore I think the people who has the commercial right of the design gave the photographer permission to take the picture of the tower at night.
looks like my instagram is illegal in france
Half as Interesting i have a question but i dont know if you have mentioned it or not heres my question: Is it legal to take a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night for personal use not commercial? If yes is it legal if I show my friends and people the Eiffel Tower at night? *PLS ANSWER*
Prisoner 1: "I robbed a bank"
Prisoner 2: "I killed a guy"
Prisoner 3:"I took pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night."
Prisoner 4: "Hand"
That's some real sh*t
He is the toughest guy in court
Prisoner 4 : wow I destroyed a nokia *with my bare habds*
Everyone else: *shrieks, gasps, and whispers*
@@Owudukan omg how is that possible
i love how tame this video is and how increasingly unhinged this channel has gotten over the years
and the voice is serious
Unhinged sells, and sells well to certain types of people.
Tame? A kiddy version of the navy seal copypasta scrolls down the screen within the first minute.
Back when it used to be a spiritual successor to That Wikipedia List
I always like when I see channels I like commenting on other channels I like
I feel like a cybercriminal now after Googling photos of The Eiffel Tower at night.
Hi Some Guys
What is strange about it is actually Eiffel tower is not copyrighted but actually the light installment itself in this case; the reason why you can take photo of it during day and there is no problem about it and it is ridiculous actually
Jofx mood
Personal use is ok. Commercial is illegal
@@jofx4051 during the day, the lights are not on
This is why people hate copyrights. They started out as a very useful measure for intangible assets but then people abused them and have made a complete mockery out of them.
*Insert CGP Grey video*
Let's go to China then. They have all sorts of weird knock offs and nobody really does anything
@@ace74909 I don’t think they meant it this way. If it’s a public building we should be able to take pictures of it day or night and even if the lights were installed recently those laws should apply since it’s on a public building. Building the same architecture should be where the copyright starts and ends.
The law, as a universal rule, does not follow reason.
Reason makes the law, then the law is immediately twisted and abused to the exact letter.
@@ace74909 this
Me : what are you in for?
Inmate : murdering 2 people what about you
Me : taking pictures of Eiffel tower
Haser xD
Inmate moves to the far corner :D
Inmate: *Hes to dangerous to be alive*
I know this is a joke, but for people who don't know you would jsut be fined
Oliver Revillo OmG iTs A jOkE r/WoOOsH
Yes this reply is a joke
Long story short, the tower itself's copyright has expired, but the lights that turn on at night were only installed in 1985, so their copyright is still active
Thank you for saving me some time
Thanks for the direct explanation. I don't have to waste my time watching.
If three and a half minutes is a "long story" you must have a rough time making it through the day.
@@Wintersmith12 lad I watched the video
Also, night isn't the restriction, it's whether the lights are on. Sell as many photos as you want of it at night during a power failure.
Me: Looks at this video
Also me: *looks at my profile pic*
YOU GOD
YOU WHAT
change your profile picture
France: 🏃♂️SIR,
we have been trying to reach you about your expired car warranty.
It's not "illegal". It's legal to take pictures or videos. But it's ILLEGAL to sell them to a third party. GET IT?
Lawyer here. You don’t go to jail for copyright infringement. You also don’t go to jail - or get sued - for sharing your holiday photos, it’s only commercial use (sales, advertising etc)
There is a guy who went to jail for violating Microsoft's copyright on Windows.
@@markyaworski4358 you are right, typically you won't go to jail in most jurisdictions unless they can prove significant financial gain, such as typically seen in software piracy and resultant theft.
@@anujbahukhandi3266 Oddly, the guy I mentioned did not gain financially. He made copies of a disk that Microsoft gave away for free and gave them away.
what about fair use? this video is educational and a documentary
"Welcome to the Salty Spittoon, how tough are ya?"
"I took a picture of the Eiffel Tower."
"So?"
" *At night.* "
"Oh shit come on in."
+UnPhayzable - Hahahahahahahaha, Nice Reference!
nice xD
Milky watch ur mouth bitch, black people dont watch this shit, so i KNOW ur not supposed to be using the N word
This is the best comment I've ever seen.
Smell my feet bruh Im black
The way copyright is handled is absolutely ridiculous no matter the country. This is one of the more egregious examples.
Blizzic *ehm* *cough* *sneeze* *TH-cam monetizatio-* *cough*
But its not
Eteeee3
Blizzic that’s why I live in America.
YOU CANNOT SHOW ANYONE A FRIDGE
Girl:i only like bad boys
Me:I took a photo of the Eiffel Tower
Girl:And?
Me:At night...
Lmao
Girl: OmG iS tHaT eVeN lEgAl???
You: nope 😎
@BlueKing2018 Lol. Weird isn't it?
*gets laid*
Grabs a wet floor sign
"It's illegal to create a replica of the Eiffel tower at night"
Have you ever watched Ratatouille? You know, that scene where Remi goes up?
Maybe Pixar got the necessary authorization from the Eiffel Tower lights creators.
It wasn't real it was animated so I'm sure it had something to do with that
It's the lights that are copyrighted, not the structure itself. As long as they can't verifiably prove those are the same lights, that's all clear.
@@jacobsmith4428 I dunno, sounds unrealistic saying:"not the same lights" cause they clearly specify that's Paris, what else could that be? On the other hand, I find extremely illegal what they did(IF they didn't pay to make the scene), cause they used Eiffel tower image to specificaly COMERCIAL USES, wich is explained in the video that THAT is, indeed, against copyright
It's quite prominently featured in Disney's Soarin' ride, as well (at least in Shanghai and Orlando, not sure about the other parks.) Disney presumably got a license for it.
Jail:
Big scary guy: “What are you in here for?”
Me: “Oh, taking a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night.”
Big scary guy: *Backs away*
Big scary black guy*
Lmao
Rofl
AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA LOL!
*_Ah, so you're a man of culture aswell..._*
How to make free money:
Step one: Copyright your house
Step two: Sue Google maps and google earth for money
you'd have to get the copryright from the original architect
@@danielkorladis7869 what if you designed it?
Ok ima get some money brb
@@danielkorladis7869 jokes on you my family designed our house lmao
@@itzhxrry2915 nice
Is no one else dying at the random google review about it being too windy? 😂💀 The way he said it so nonchalantly killed me
I know
I never knew buildings were copyrighted!
LucasArg more like Landmark but I agree lol
Makes sense if you want to build one identically somewhere else
so stupid right, cant believed it
the US has more or less the exact same copyright laws as european countries due to the Berne Convention lmao
it's not like we owned the eiffel tower or any landmarks in Europe,so why with these so called copyrights?
“Photos of the Eiffel Tower at night are illegal”
Litterally everybody that doesn’t live in France : “that sign won’t stop me because I can’t read”
Je ne suis pas capable de lire le francais!!! hon hon hon
hon hon toi même
@@johnvanegmond1812 *Meet the snorting baguette man*
@@dunfries_aax No puedo leer espanol. Jajaja ;)
@@dunfries_aax lmaoo
Shouldn't Ratatouille be banned?
😂
e_e
xD
Hold up
Exactly. They use the law to suit them
Dang, that transition at 02:23 was pretty smooth. Props to the boyscout!
sometimes humans are so extra bruh
yup
Safa lol yup
Commercial use probably means they'll only go after people making large profits like a music artist. Courts would be flooded if they came after everyone
Right on Brody
Tell me something I don't know.
I’ve probably broken a begillion laws without realizing it
Næp Sæck same here XD
Næp Sæck I’ve probably broken a begillion laws with realizing it
You fucking rebel 😉
To make you feel better. Law/rule is made to be broken.
Næp Sæck me too I have used several pictures of the Eiffel Tower during the night in my school projects and one of them was sponsored.
And this is why aliens won't talk to us.
Yuuji Sherman aliens didn't even visit us
Yuuji Sherman
They’ve been talking to us
ARE EARTH IS F*CKING ZERO GRAVITY!
Yuuji Sherman lmao an old classic meme
😂😂😂
It isn't taking a pic of the tower at night that's illegal. It's taking a pic of the lights working and using that pic for commercial use, without compensating the artist, that's illegal.
Me: takes a picture of the Eiffel Tower in the middle of a solar eclipse.
Big brēn
Big brēn
Copyright is related to lights so technically it's nothing to do with night.
If lights are on during solar eclipse it will be still illegal.
Bloody Brilliant
well yes but actually no
My wallpaper is illegal?
I guess so
FAIR USE.... YOU JUST CANT SELL ITTTT
@You Tube lol
@@olivebot257 woosh
*FBI OPEN UP*
me: putting my own copyrighted stone on earth
all satelites: RIP
Think if we all do it.
😁😁
COPYRIGHTED STONEJJSJSJSJ
They gotta pay 5 bucks every time they take a photo of that
@@PhiAce_0
Breaking news: google goes bankrupt after paying man billions because of a copyrighted rock
Proof copyright laws are dumb
“So, why did you go to prison?”
“I took a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night.”
“Come with me, sir. We need to create a VIP lounge for you.
elijahpepe VIP lounge? No that dude deserves in solitary confinement
@@fleajaee
Just schedule that guy for execution
noooooooo he needs a country dedicated to him/her
e
Because God is dead and we killed him.
Oooohhh!
Becuz ali a
BC the person who invented it is dead.
murdered by angry nighttime youtube browsers
I did a PowerPoint of the eiffel tower 2 years ago and i had a picture of it in the night AND showed it to my class 😂😂😂😂😂 damn it feels good to be a gangster
YOLOTABBXD Your teacher and classmates have no idea it is illegal so.......no one cares
Damn bro ur supa savage
YOLOTABBXD SAVAGE
YOLOTABBXD you aren't a "gangster" because you didn't sell that picture of the Eiffel Tower.
YOLOTABBXD
It’s not illegal if you didn’t make money off of it. If you did, wtf school do you go to?
this is a great illustration as to why humanity is doomed!
I'm french and never heard of this. Eiffel tower is filmed and photographed every day and every night by thousands of ppl/tourists. Plus with all the crime, the terrorism, and considering how full prisons are and how busy cops are.... there are approximately 0.00000001 chance to get in trouble for that. Only thing you risk doing that at night is being attacked by thugs for your camera.
Alltimeboxing enfin quelqu'un avec un cerveau ptn mercii 😂😂
You’re aloud to take pictures of it, the title is a bit of clickbait. It’s illegal to use those pictures for commercial use
Alltimeboxing, thanks for the heads-up for the muggers but no thanks for ruining the "Perfect" Paris for me. lol
you sir are a racist
Alltimeboxing you didn’t know lol? But yeah your right the chance is low that you’ll get in trouble for that but most people who take pics are mostly for private use. I’m sure it would be different if a Huge company took a photo without a license
Being a little dramatic here.
MrYorkieLover Fitness d
*searches pictures of the Eiffel tower at night*
😂 Hell yeah
Tony Stark did it
As someone that owns a stage lighting business I can't believe that someone (and a millennial at that) finally gets it. Years of work and expense so some dumb vulture photographer can photograph my art and force me to buy it off them. Lighting rigs can cost more than the venue itself and Lampys are the most dedicated people in the venue even more dedicated than the stage performers themselves and everyone rips us off like some shit godamn charity!
Bouncer: How tough are ‘ya?
Me: I’ve taken photos of the Eiffel Tower.
Bouncer: Yeah, so?
Me: _at night_
Bouncer: *uh right this way*
Hayk Ghazaryan 🤣
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
Every time I see at night, I say it in spongebobs voice
The salty spitoon
Sir*
**Looks at video title**
“Oop”
**turns off phone to show Lock Screen of the Eiffel Tower picture I took at night**
As a french I can assure you that no one ever got in trouble for taking pics of the Eiffel tower at night 🤷🏼♂️
Now you've jinxed it
If they kept it themselves it is ok if they put out for tourism then it is illegal
@@lampoilropebombs0640 it's not illegal if you pay for it.
You are a french?
@@lampoilropebombs0640 And it's not illegal if you're not caught.
I took a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night and nothing ha-
*FBI! OPEN UP!*
LoL
lol
why would the fbi, an American government organization, care about a French monument
They didn't tell me. I'm sending this message from prison.
Lmaoooo
2:52 I've never heard such upbeat music while being told about someone's death.
th-cam.com/video/sWt8ZIgDA9I/w-d-xo.html
Now you are
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@deppies yepp there it is
*Buckingham Palace has announced the death of his Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburg*
Photographing the Eiffel Tower at night is not illegal at all. Any individual can take photos and share them on social networks.
But the situation is different for professionals. The Eiffel Tower’s lighting and sparkling lights are protected by copyright, so professional use of images of the Eiffel Tower at night require prior authorization and may be subject to a fee. Professionals should therefore contact the Eiffel Tower's management company to learn about conditions for using the images depending on the case. - From the official website of eiffel tower.
So every time a copyright runs out, a new artist can go and draw a single new line on a painting and that will extend the copyright in their name until 70 years after their death.
I think it is incredibly silly because the lights do exactly follow the lines of the tower. It needed no creativity and just a bunch of electricians who aren't afraid of heights
Technicallly yes
@@patrikjansen7831 Does that mean the copyright is extended because a light requires replacement as it may no longer functions? 🤔
I know...sounds absurd, but I wouldn't put anything past the French government.
This is exactly why Disney keep pumping out remakes of their classic movies, gotta keep the paperwork up to date
@LOLWHATBRO and to add on to that most if not all of their old classics are based on public domain stories anyway. The only think slightly original from Disney was Mickey mouse. They want to extend copyright so nobody can "steal" their work yet that's hownthey made their money in the first place.
It's absurd to copyright buildings. Not because they are not artistic works, but because it's impossible to stop people making picutres of them and uploading them, especially in the era when everyone is carrying a camera in their pocket.
basically the government want you to be their slaves,the whole modern copyright needs to be changed for the digital age but you people for some reason don't mind it.
It’s not about taking photos, it’s about if you make money off it. If you took professional photos of the Eiffel Tower to sell them, that’s when it’s an issue. I have photos of the Eiffel Tower at night. As mentioned in the video, it’s okay if it’s for PERSONAL use. So if you’re taking photos because you’re travelling, that’s totally fine!
.
It's absolutely idiotic. Something placed in the public space that is impossible to NOT look at it should not be copyrightable.
For commercial purpose. You can take the pictures, you can show them, you just can't sell them or generate revenue from them.
2055: Ah yes I can finally post this photo of the Eiffel Tower at night on Instagram
Also 2055: What's Instagram?
Hahahah you fool! You forgot the most amazing invention ever in 2042 that again made it illegal to photograph the tower at day and night!
@@AggressiveAnimations I'm sure this will not change
Only if whoever put the lights in died in 1985.
@77thSOUND unless posting shit on Instagram is your profession
I visited France on a school trip in 2000, and they had a sign on the Eifel Tower that said Ans2000. I always thought it made my pictures kind of look tacky, but now I think it's cool.
Now they have signs on it promoting businesses who buy advertising time on those signs. Typical milking of their cash cow overrated tourist trap
Next thing I'm gonna search now is "Eiffel tower at night" lol
My Instant Search There will be a cop banging on your door
I mean if he searched it it doesn't mean the photo would be his.
I already did 😂
My Instant Search check Sam Kolder channel to Check the Eiffel tower at night
Well, there's apparently plenty of photos of the Eiffel tower at night.
This video is a lie :q
Hey, I love what you do and have watched all your videos.
However as a french lawyer, I have to tell it is incorrect.
You mentioned that the French copyright law has never been enforced with regard to the Eiffel tower. There is a reason for that.
Basically what you explained is correct. French law prohibits commercial use of a copyrighted work without the author's authorisation. Therefore it is illegal to sell pictures of copyrighted material but there is a massive querk.
Indeed the French cour de cassation (France hightest court) made it pretty clear that there are some exceptions.
First, this law only applies when the copyrighted work is on the foreground. Thus, the photo of an aerial view of Paris is always perfectly fine since non of the work included are the center of the photo. You could open a shop selling photos of an aerial view of Paris and you'd be fine.
The second exception, and the most relevant here is that in order for the law to apply, the copyrighted material has to be the topic of the support it is included in. Therefore a video including a picture of the pyramid of the louvre is fine when if are making a point about copyright law in France because the topic of the video is copyright law and the pyramid is just an illustration.
However if your job is to sell photos of the Eiffel tower at night or any other copyrighted work without making any other point than "here is a photo of the monument" you will need the author's authorisation. That's why Shutterstock can't have a photo of the Eiffel tower at night.
In fact case law on this topic is almost exclusively about postal cards. One easy test you can use to identify whether or not it is legal to show a monument is to imagine that you have photoshopped it out of your work. Then try to see whether or not your work has lost the essential of its value.
In the case of a postal card featuring the Eiffel Tower at night, once you've taken away the monument, the card become worthless. Thus it is illegal. Same goes for stock photos, without the tower, it's just an empty night sky.
However, this video is essentially the same with or without the Eiffel tower. It's still a video about copyright law in France. Therefore it is legal.
You're not the only one to have made this mistake and last time I checked it was still on Wikipedia.
In fact this is quite a fascinating story. I have ( or think I still have ) proofs that the Wikipedia article on this topic was used to write articles on other sites that were later added as sources to original Wikipedia article. This is a mechanism that has been studied or at least I have heard of that. I think you should make a video about it.
Merci!
Great, insightful comment. To the top!
merci!
But then you can claim that the Eiffel Tower appears in the title of the video and thus it is the focus of this video and therefore illegal to show it.
danytnt you can claim it, but it won't work since the video is clearly about copyright law.
Thanks for shedding some *light* on the law
“So what are you in for?” “I took a picture of the Eiffel Tower” *Inmates slowly back away*
never heard of that, but great video!
Authentik i agree
Authentik k
Authentik
Authentik me either
Alana Mitchell stop
Large Prison Dude: So what u here 4 man?
Me: I took a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night...
Large Prison Dude: *SHRIEKS LIKE A LITTLE GIRL AND RUNS AWAY IN FEAR AND TERROR*
Large dude: *comes back with a giant bread loaf shield for the rest of his life*
TheMysteryMan Lol your profile pic is an incognito symbol
GangPupper Shhh it enhances the mystery effect 😂
U so gangsta bro
What is the ethnicity of said large prison dude?
My current wallpaper is Eiffel Tower at night,THUG LIFE. B|
Javed Ali lol
Javed Ali using it commercially? No? Thug life popatate! 😂
FBI: stay right where you are
+Jappie1112 XD
the police are on their way
Gosh, I love this old style of narration. Before Sam and every other creater decided they had to get super and unnaturally animated in order to keep my attention.
Copyright laws are sometimes some of the dumbest things in the world, a building IS public domain, copyrighting it should be limited to replicating the building by constructing an identical design, not to use its picture or video, that's insane, just like how insane it is to limit using music in a movie to copyright, a musical copyright should only apply to replicating it within the same medium, once it's become a cultural piece it's public domain and no one should have the right to stop people being influenced by it.
This sounds good, but isn't really true. Imagine you made a piece of music and someone used it in an insulting way in their movie without paying you for your work. Copyright protect for music is about 2 things: the melody and the sound recording. You can't use some else's sound recording in your work, unless its a derivative work (which legally is essentially a new work).
Imagine you create a symbol of peace, balance and harmony, then some crazy dictator decides to use it for his party without asking your permission, he commits one of the big mass murder in history, he brings the whole world into a global conflict to which he loses, and in the end the symbol you created becomes the emblem of evil and people forget its original purpose, and while there are still samples of the original symbol unrelated to said ductator, people can't dissociate them from him.
Why can't we charge the owners or creators of these buildings a fee if we don't like their buildings? They're cramming my Right to Panorama with unwanted results.
@@HypercatZ and how does a copyright law stop that from happening?
Copyright law is flawed, but not insane because it doesn't limit you until you try to make money off of the copyrighted work. That's the whole point of copyright: making sure the creator has the opportunity to profit from their own work. It's not about stopping the public from enjoying that work.
Limiting copyright to only the medium of the work doesn't make sense either... Imagine if you wrote an amazing piece of music but nobody really gave it any recognition. Then, without your consent, it was used as the main theme in a multi million dollar Hollywood blockbuster and contributed to its huge success. Don't you think you should have a say in your piece's use? And shouldn't you see some return from its use?
that thumbnail is copyrighted
*demonetized*
This
THT Brickfilms he was being sarcastic
THT Brickfilms WOOOOOSH
Er ignore my last reply .-.
TheWebCon hehe
How bout Smurfs 2?
They showed the Eiffel Tower at night..
It's possible to license the ability to use a copyrighted work so long as you agree to pay royalties to the to the creator and the creator knows fully how and when the work will be used.
•Gummy• It’s not that you can’t use it at all under commercial use you’d just have to give credit and get permission from the creator to do so and they might request that you pay them for use
@@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447 r/woooosh? Idk
@@maggie1000 r/woooosh same here idk
@@Kriegter I believe he was genuinely curious.
Those laws are nutty. Showing a building in the context of the city it is in should never be a violation of law in my opinion.
Me thinking stays were joking when they made stray kids delete their photos
i was gonna comment this-
me too-
do u have the pics?
@@kkami1947 i dont
this is the reason why i clicked this vid-
So does that mean my home is a piece of art and I can sue someone for taking a picture of it and using it for commercial use?
Paul Gibson well the person who designed it could
Yea because someone put my house on sale with photos outside of the house and I said to that guy to delete it and guess what he did it.So it is posible you need some privacy you know=)
HOLY SHIT my dad built our house and designed it so we could sue ppl
Only if u suit ur home as a copyrighted *not* piece of artwork…?
@@erikolson5465 sueing goals.
😂😂
“Welcome to the gang kid!
We’ve got stealing steve, murdering mike and crimes johnson”
“What did crimes johnson do?”
“He took photos of the eiffel tower at night”
Crimes Johnson... Lol!!
Taking a photo is *not* illegal. Using it commercially is.
@@Akshaj_Bhalla taking a photo in France is illegal they don't have the Freedom of panorama in their constitution
@@Akshaj_Bhalla r/woooosh
Copyright Cory
Um... title is misleading. (like so many are). From the website of the Sociéte d'Exploitation de la tour Eiffel (they run the thing):
Is it illegal to photograph the Tower at night?
Photographing the Eiffel Tower at night is not illegal at all. Any individual can take photos and share them on social networks.
But the situation is different for professionals. The Eiffel Tower’s lighting and sparkling lights are protected by copyright, so professional use of images of the Eiffel Tower at night require prior authorization and may be subject to a fee. Professionals should therefore contact the Eiffel Tower's management company to learn about conditions for using the images depending on the case.
In my view this is exactly what HAI said, or at least the way I understood what he said.
@@k.b.tidwell Title says "Why Photos of the Eiffel Tower at Night are Illegal". Please read what I wrote. I said "title is misleading". Which it is.
@@k.b.tidwell No, he said that "a photo taken by night is an illegal replication". And this claim is wrong, because it is not illegal.
* Goes to france to film the effifel tower at night *
"I only date bad boys"
Well I travel to France to make a picture of the eifel tower at night
"Master"? More like, idk. I don't even know anymore anyway, bye. Have a nice day.
FBI OPEN UP
I went there at night and took a selfie. I didn’t take a picture of it. I took a picture of myself. (Jk I will never go to France)
Meme Master I just went to France and did that exact
I hate it, when you are not allowed to do something, because of something ridiculous
Cyber One i don't think it's ridiculous.
True but it's the Law even if it's Unfair
It involves tourism (💰) and novelty. It's not ridiculous.
100 percent agree. It should follow the same laws as photographing/videoing people which is that if it’s in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy then you should be allowed to do it. The Eiffel Tower is a massive building that you can see across Paris, there’s no expectation of privacy and therefore should be allowed to be photographed no matter what. Such a stupid law
Law is the law we can’t change it
i never knew of this at all. super interesting
Ryan Smith I literally saw you in the comments at 3 different videos today😂
I SEE THIS GUY EVERY FUCKING VIDEO
I would say it's half as interesting
WHY ARE YOU EVERYWHERE
Ryan Smith quit trying to promote your dead channel
I actually have a copyright lawyer friend and I asked him about this after watching this video. He said yes the Eiffel Tower lights are copyrighted but that only applies for commercial use only any general public person using it for their own personal purposes is perfectly legal.
@@LOLWHATBROyea,he did lol it's copyrighted. Whether he heard from his friend or the video , his point was I copyrighted dummy
That's don't make any sense. I understand the video. But. This is so weird.
60 years are up: yay now I can take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night! (light breaks and has to be fixed) Oh well now we have to wait another 60 years
Teemo best comment out here!
Unless they completely redesign it, the copyright wouldn't reset.
Copyright doesn't reset just because someone touched up a painting.
What do you mean we can take pictures of it at night? If you watched the video COMPLETELY, we still have 55 years left till the Copyright claim ceases
70 years* =)
LMAO
Just take a video then
im pretty sure that still follows the same laws, cause a video is basically, multiple pictures being taken at once and very quickly, to make a video.
@@bluefoxy6478 r/wooosh
Sorry
Actually a “video” is a picture, cuz it’s fps
soggyoli oh yeah yeah yeah yeah
Modern problems need modern solutions
I sent this video to a friend that's just got to Paris and post her first images there of.. you guess it, Eiffel tower at night.
Wait so the copyright of the Eiffel Tower ended but because someone put lights on it reset? So we have to wait a lifetime and 70 years because someone put Christmas lights on a 100 year old structure. Okay then
Actually you have to wait another 38 years because that is when the license expires
Yeah and isn’t it not illegal to take pictures of lit Christmas trees?
Mr Moo Christmas trees aren't artistic and haven't been copyrights genius
gwabada HE WAS TALKING ABOUT FUCKING TREES YOU DENSE SHIT
What an ultra smooth transition to the sponsors. I didn't see that coming lol
Ikr I was like when did this stop being about the Eiffel tower
Yup....and I feel like i've been raped while Sleeping
Heck always does it super well
It's called a good advertisment.
"branded content" you'll be seeing a lot more of it on other popular channels, soon.
So basically, because bullshit.
Yeah pretty much sums it up
....Euro-bullshit.
Fuck laws
Yeah, that's not how copyright works at all; reproducing an image of a building is not the same as actually reproducing the building.
"illegal" only Merkel be with those laws.
Thanks for sharing that interesting bit of information about the Eiffel Tower!
No one-
Every kpop idol that visited France has a picture of Eiffel Tower at night.
Jennie and kai lol
@@moonj2090 idk why I feel so happy about NCT being mentioned here 😭😔
@@moonj2090 i legit thought of mark ever since i saw the thumbnail 💀
every kpop fans’ thoughts:
Lmaoo not at skz deleting their eiffel tower pictures when we said it's illegal lmaoo they really thought they were going to jail 😭😭
"So, what are you in for?"
"Arson, what about you?"
"I took pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night."
"Deep shit."
edgy
Well, that's *dark*
YEE
I wanna be best friends with u.
I think I just heard a rimshot. (badum tsh) Yep. There it is.
How do you have dark text?
1k likes 6 comments. Ok
If you visit Antelope Canyon in Arizona, you're allowed to take photos, but must get permission from the Navajo to use those photos commercially.
I realized now that in an old camera that i used as a kid, i took a photo of the eiffel tower at night
Im calling the police
R/madlad
FBI open up
pssst share it with me
send it on discord
*how about putting copyright on my picture at night it is possible?*
Lmao
Well... fair use if its a artistic work
It's not only possible, it's automatic. But don't think that just because you have copyright on something, that doesn't mean you can't infringe the copyright other people have (to elements of their work that are in your work) by distributing your own work.
So Rush Hour 3 could be illegal eh?
No, because they probably paid the owner of the rights
They actually filmed that on the Eiffel tower, so they paid somebody for the right to it.
Nope, Warner Bros. has many copyright attorneys just to obtain clearances and licences for their works. A small acquired independent film might have an image slip through the cracks but certainly not a summer blockbuster that predominately features this particular subject matter.
Would going from sodium lighting to slightly different LED lighting create a new copyright? That is likely to happen, if it hasn't already. The designer of the 1985 lighting is likely retired, if not deceased. Resetting the copyright after 40 years is easier than waiting for the creator's original copyright to expire.
I love the overt reference to Disney in the video. I am ok with corporations, but this copyright after death nonsense needs to stop. I have come to the conclusion that with everything in today's world, copyright should be viable for about 20 years, regardless of the creator's lifespan. The creators obviously do not benefit from their copyrights after death, but I do not necessarily believe in copyright until death either. I believe patents only last 19 years, and yet these same people and corporations can still work within that time frame.
In exchange for a shorter copyright period, it would be more than fair to allow for much stricter enforcement and penalties to violators.
Junior Matsuda n
Omg, hahah
Time to go right outside the police station in Paris at night and take a picture of the Eiffel Tower.
If I paint Eiffel Tower white today, I'll be getting royalties from all the photos of Eiffel for the rest of my life + 70 years? Sign me up!
DeepSpace12 you would need approval from the french parliament first
This is why we have all those "unavailable in your region" restrictions. Thank you unreasonable copyright law.
But there is also this thing called Fair Use and as long as your making a commentary and or education people on something like your doing its fair use and you are allowed to show the archetuctual works without blurring them. So you didn't need to blur them.
Yes that is correct If it is for educational purposes, not shown on social media sites, non profit, don't credit yourself, and specify the audience the picture will be shown to I think it will be allowed, But also remember there are tones of loop holes in the copy right system that can still be applicable to you are using the work and can result in a law suit of some sort.
As for the use of the pictures in this video. No you are incorrect because this video has ads therefor the channel gains profit off of people viewing it.
In the scenario that this video didn't have ads you still wont be allowed to show the land marks because It can be considered an advert for this channel without the permission from the person(s) that holds the copyright.
But there isn't any Fait Use in Europe :-/ ... therefore you might need to regionlock your video.
In Canada, fair use exception to copyright allows one to use it even in commercial purposes of it is for teaching, research, and private studies. Not sure about France and won't be surprised if they didn't have corresponding laws.
But that's in US Copyright law. Not every country has fair use. We generally go by US copyright law on the web because most companies servers/data centers reside in the US and are subject to those laws.
“It’s illegal to take video of the Effie Tower at night!”
Webdriver Torso : o b s e r v e
Whats next...don't look at that building or you'll be fined, imprisoned and bummed in the prison shower!!
Random-TV the building gets a burqa
Matthias E Makes perfect sense considering the influx of immigrants.
thats bullshit
Haha, French people lost their common sense. No wonder they need all the Arabs to substitute them...
Ondrej Pazdernik love reading Bullshit in TH-cam comments 🙄
well... new lights are installed onto buildings every year tho...
Christmas lights, new yr ones etc lol
no photos till the end of time?
No. Incorrect. It was only things that have been trademarked.
He talks about France and other little exceptions
Nazz mk iirc even in France if something is not trademarked and/or patented they can legally take pictures of it.
+ThePulmentinum
Two problems with your argument.
1. Copyright law is completely different from trademark law and patent law. Patent law covers inventions and functionality. Trademark law covers branding. Copyright law covers art and other creative works.
2. Copyright is implicit and opt-out, unlike Trademarks and Patents which are explicit and opt-in. If you create and publish a copyrightable work, you automatically have ownership and usage rights of that work regardless of whether you registered it or not unless you explicitly make it public domain. As such, technically a Christmas light display is owned by whoever set it up. That being said, another difference between copyright and trademarks/patents is that you are not forced to actively defend your copyright should it be infringed. You have full control of any copyrighted material you own - including the ability to give people permission to use said copyrighted material and the ability to revoke that permission at any point. If you decide not to go after someone for an infringement, you've given that person defacto permission until you decide otherwise. And since it would be a dick move to sue someone over incidental Christmas lights, that's generally the course of action most people take. This also means that you can sue Joe Newbie over an infringement but then allow John Smith to get away with it - maybe John Smith is a good friend of yours, or Joe Newbie was using your work with malicious intent.
I'm copyrighting the sun
georgyorgy2 sorry I beat you. My agent handled that in 1981.
georgyorgy2 Are you the architect of the sun?
ManiacNine6 then retards will get sued
georgyorgy2 cough cough, solar eclipse...
Cough cough i copyrighted the mün and the sky
Machinen Kanone Srry but I beat YOU to it. I copyrighted the sun and all other celestial bodies about 13 billion years ago.
The... lights? The lighting? That's a copyrighted work? If I'm in France, can I take a picture of someone else's installed lightbulb and get sued then?
I'm french and I never heard of this law... 🤔🤔🤔
same here
omg army!
reem Kombar we are everywhere 😜😘
Il dit juste de la merde en vrai x)
Haz226 J'ai cherché sur internet et apparemment il dit vrai même si je trouve ça complétement ridicule
Yeah well downloading songs is illegal but I still do it lol
Megan Torres your committing and admitting a crime..see you in jail loool 😂😂😂😂😂
i do too all my friend doo tooo so yeah
Megan Torres same but i dont give one fuck
who the fuck spends actual money on music the fuck
If the music is on youtube or soundcloud, clearly the creator is okay with it. If it keeps getting deleted off of your playlist and the only versions left are high pitched / nightcore, obviously they're having a fit with the copyright and you shouldn't download the music that the creators clearly don't want to give out for free.
Alright, so my next goal is to go to Paris and start flying vlogs and other videos at night around the Eiffel tower. That's a really shit restriction
gaming4you well it ain't yours so shut the fuck up
TehGreenDino it's a public landmark. I can't see the reason not to admire it and let other people view it too. (and yes I got your sarcasm)
Did you see the video ? It has never been enforced plenty of people film things regularly there and nobody went to jail, it's just a funny laughable fact.
Because the lights are an artist's creation. Most people don't steal movies, songs, books. Well, that's the same. And yes, copyright laws in France are restrictive. Because we care about intellectual and artistic property. And it's just okay.
You obviously have the right to take pictures and record videos of the Eiffel tower for yourself. Just don't broadcast or put anything on social medias for *commercial* use (because you're not a professional photographer who's been authorized to do so). That includes YT vlogs I suppose, if your video gets monetized... Seriously, have you watched the video?
I think it's something that Logan Paul probably do.
Is there a story on how Disney was able to represent Paris in Ratatouille?
This makes me want to go to France and take a picture of it at night and post it on Instagram publicly
😂😂😂
Well, technically, copyright is one thing, enforceability is another. Technically, you can upload a photo while in country that supports all the freedom of panorama things, and, provided the photo is both uploaded and hosted in a server in such country, it'd be perfectly legal in the laws of that country. The same is true for photos taken by imaging satellites, since as any airship they're governed by the law of their owner residence and you aren't even one foot in France while taking such photo.
Me too
You can
That is legal. You need to sell the photos for it to be illegal.
Interesting.
I looked up the Eiffel Tower on a commercial stock image site, and from a brief sample the ones with the lights on say they're for editorial use only. Those with the lights off have no such warning.
Yeah, because pictures intended for editorial purposes like newspapers or magazines are exempt from copyright and often privacy laws.
It would still be possible to have stock images of the Eiffel tower at night intended for commercial use but the photographers would have to show that they have the permission (usually at a cost) to be able to have it on the site.
In Prison
Me: Why did you go to prison?
Inmate: Uhm taking Pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night
Me: Wait Wha-.....?
Why did YOU go to prison ......?
@Troller 777
I was thinking the same thing 😂
@User
Lol 😂
Most of the people watching the video paused it and did a cyber crime of googling The Eiffel Tower at night😅
Guard: Hey!Taking pictures of Eiffel tower in this time is illegal!
Me: Im not taking pictures,im recording a video
Guard: Oh,ok.
"bUt TaKiNg ViDeOs iS sTiLL iLLeGaL" r/wooosh
*Screen shots the video taken*
Guard: Hey! Taking pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night is illegal.
Me: I'm taking a picture of a light bulb on the Eiffel tower during the day.
Guard: Oh, okay
videos are like 30 illegal pictures a second lmao good luck
@@rayfan9876 or 60... maybe 120? how bout 240? what about 20,000?
A very, very loosely enforced law
"Arkansas" obviously.
Oscar Blanco arc-in-saw
Just like SPEED LIMITS!
M B
M B h
I don’t know if any nctzens are here but who instantly thought of Mark in front of the Eiffel Tower at night😂
not an nctzen but yeah lol I remembered that
I remember jenkai 😶
yaaaahhh omgee 🤭 uri lee mark 😶😶
Also jenkai🤣
So many idols have taken photos in front of the Eiffel tower at night💀💀💀
I’m copyrighting my room so my mother can’t barge in anymore.