Hungarian ban on street photography

[AJHingel]

<p>Ivo, it becomes very rapidly very legalistic, but no "law" would explicitly mention any of these buildings. What you have is a registered copyright ("brevet") and jurisprudence decisions. <br>

In the case of the artistic light on the Eiffel tower you would have the registration of the copyright in the french l’INPI (office de dépôts de brevets, marques, dessins - in French equivalent of the USPTO in the US) N° 1379547; n° 03/322952; n°1310358 and n°99803691) and for the jurisprudence you have the decisions of the <a href="http://legimobile.fr/fr/jp/j/c/civ/1ere/1992/3/3/90-18081/">Decision of the Cour de Cassation (Court of Appeal) of 3 mars 1992</a> of 1989. </p>

<p>For the commercial exploitation of images of the other mentioned buildings you would be able to find the same references to legal decisions. It should be added, that such legal bases for forbidding commercial exploitation of photos of the mentioned building is continuous contested by photographers and some legal experts in France. Meanwhile they are considered in force.</p>

[ivo_ivo]

Anders, there is nothing "legalistic" to post a link to such wide-sweeping a restriction as you claimed as it

concern not a small number of photographers. I am sorry to say that the link you provided says nothing of

the sort to back you statements. It is not a generalised restriction to photograph "the Eiffel tower at night",

but a specific legal case where a single instance of an artistic event, undertaken by a legal entity, on the

occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Eiffel tower was sold as post cards by the defendant. Again, the

case underline the position of the French law that copyright is individual, and not collective; and that it

apply to artistic creations, and not to utilitarian items like, for instance, a spoon, a car or a building. Your

line of argument is simply not backed by the citation you provided.

[AJHingel]

<p>Ivo, you might just go to the official website of the Tour Eiffel exploitation society and you will find the following message concerning copyrights of night shots of the Eiffel tower illumination:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><em>"Daytime views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free.</em></p>

<p ><em>However, its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the "Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" (the Eiffel Tower’s operating company, or SETE)."</em></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p >In cases of conflict, the Tour Eiffel exploitation society will fight their case in court based on the jurisprudence references I mentioned. If you are in doubt, try them out, and not me.</p>

[ivo_ivo]

Anders, I regret to say but your insistence amount to disinformation. As you couldn't back your claim with any meaningful

legal citation you resorted to a private company hypothetical code of conduct; even when such private code exist it has no

legal force. And in the particular case of the Eiffel tower a quick check of the SETE web site proved exactly the contrary: the

company seem bend to assist filmmakers and photographers willing to incorporate the tower in their projects. Here

(http://www.toureiffel.paris/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&Itemid=131&lang=en) is what they wrote:

"The Eiffel Tower’s history is closely linked to art; photographers, visual artists and film makers have been contending for its

honour since its construction. As an emblematic monument both of Paris and France, numerous artists and directors have

wanted to incorporate it in their artistic creations.

 

 

 

Filming and image shots at the Eiffel Tower.

 

The "Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" (The Eiffel Tower’s operating company, or SETE) aims to assist and promote

all forms of artistic creation. The "Valorisation du fond Patrimonial/Droits à l’Image" office (French office managing the

promotion of patrimonial funds and image rights) is responsible for considering each project on a case by case basis, in order

to provide the best customisation according to the technical and artistic requirements of each production in terms of the

monument’s specifications, as well as for offering a fair rate for each operation." Indeed, they talk about big projects here,

like films, reportage and/or commercials. Nowhere I could find on the SETE web site any warning of restrictions of

photographic image taking of the tower, day or night.

[aplumpton]

<p>Photography in public or private places is governed by a multitude of laws in many countries and for the Hungarian situation one would have to read the law (or various related laws) to know what is possible and what is not. Unfortunately the OP does not give an overview of the law, although I agree that it is worth noting that restrictions apply.<br>

When in Portugal I was asked by the guardian from taking pictures in the courtyard of a public (historic) building. I presume this was as much to encourage the visitor to purchase postcards or other visual material from the site bookstore as anything else. Sensitive public or private buildings would seem to have every right to limit photography, as in such cases it is a privilege and not a right.<br>

Canada is quite well known as a very relaxed and mainly tolerant nation and most of its cities and provinces are not severely limiting in regard to street photography, as long as the intent is not one of commercial photography.<br>

The rules vary with location, but as an example one of its larger cities, Toronto, has these legal requirements (here in overview form)<br>

You cannot photograph a person who has a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy‘. This is someone who believes that they are in a private location and no-one is watching them (someone in their bathroom, etc.). This excludes the large population of persons on the street who are obviously aware that they are in a public space.<br>

It is not illegal, nor against copyright to take photos of buildings, public art, and permanently installed sculptures. <br>

The freedom is not exempt of limitations. Two examples of what is not permitted are:<br>

Photographing at night outside another person’s home, on their property, without permission.<br>

Commercial photographers operating in public places or buildings, unless they have a permit to do so.<br>

This freedom and the absence at most sites of surveillance cameras, such as are evident in England and elsewhere, is something that is difficult to project into the future and may well be limited in time if public safety should at some point be seriously threatened.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>Ivo, ""Nowhere I could find on the SETE web site any warning of restrictions of photographic image taking of the tower, day or night.""</em><br>

<br /> Ivo, my quote on restrictions in the use of night shots of the illumination of the Eiffel tower, comes, as you perfectly know from the same source of SETE. You choose not to quote it and even insist that you cannot find it ! ! , although this was what we are discussing and not what SETE is ready to do in order to promote the Eiffel tower. <a href="http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/the-eiffel-tower-image-and-brand/image-rights-the-eiffel-tower-brand.html">Here is the link so also you can find it.</a><br /> The possible legal basis for such need of authorization, I have always given, if you care to check. <br /> But, as mentioned, if you are in doubt, try them out.</p>

<p> </p>

[Troll]

<p>This simple post is getting rancorous.<br>

Time to put it to rest.</p>

[ivo_ivo]

Anders, this is absolutely incredible: with an authoritative voice you post repeatedly fallacious and misleading

information, and in the face of it you do continue to insist... unbelievable! In your previous post where you cited the Art.

L. 122-4 from the French Code de la propriété intellectuelle; well it contains nothing directly related to the subject of this

thread, and indeed nothing about photographing the Eiffel tower/ La Defence/ Centre Pompidou/ Le Louvre/ etc. As for

the Eiffel tower in particular, the site is unequivocal: "The Eiffel Tower, built in 1889, falls within the public domain".

Only certain illuminations as special events could be subject of authorship, and thus subject of property right. BUT, the

most important point is, as they say, "The Usage of These Images", i.e. the usage of the already available official

images, not the act of taking such images, is subject to prior agreement. This has a completely different meaning!

[AJHingel]

<p>I agree with Bill.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I don;t see anything more than strong disagreements among the posters regarding facts. There aren't any personal attacks. Threads should not be closed because some people don't like what others have posted. Just don't log onto these threads and leave them for people who still wish to make their points. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Alan, I did not see any direct demand for closing the thread, but just to put it to "rest" to stop an exchange between two, that had gone toxic. Arthur had a good contribution above that deserves surely to be continued by others if there is an interest. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Alan, I did not see any direct demand for closing the thread, but just to put it to "rest" to stop an exchange between two, that had gone toxic. Arthur had a good contribution above that deserves surely to be continued by others if there is an interest. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>A ban on street photography ? What are they going to do about all those tourist with their little point and shoots ? </p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Section 2:48 [Right to facial likeness and recorded voice]<br /></strong>(1) The consent of the person affected shall be required for producing or using his/her likeness or recorded voice.</em><br /><em>(2) The consent of the relevant person is not required for recording his/her likeness or voice, and for the use of such recording if made of a crowd or in a public event.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, from the <a href="http://blog.volgyiattila.com/2014/03/19/hungarys-law-on-photography/">link </a>that Les provided about, this section 2:48-2, does not seem to me to be a "ban on street photography" in Hungary. Much depends on its implementation, however: what is, in legal terms, a "crowd" and "public event" and what is to be understood as "likeness" ? For national courts to decide in due time. </p>