[ambiate]

Our local credit union was sued by the city for using a picture of a local bridge on their debit cards. The credit union owned the rights to the photograph that was provided by a local photographer. The city owned the right to pictures of the local bridge. Vicious cycle.

[jimktrains2]

How does a city "own the right to pictures of the local bridge"?

[estebank]

This is just insane...

"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.[54] The Société d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SETE) now considers any illumination of the tower to be under copyright.[55] 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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_c...

[slantyyz]

From what I understand, they won't go after a tourist posting to Flickr, but they will go after anyone trying to sell images or use those images in a commercial way.

[larrys]

Must be some special circumstance on that more to that story than meets the eye.

This info pertains to NYC, I believe it to be correct:

http://everydayaperture.com/law/

More info:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_l...

[slantyyz]

In the same way that you can't sell images of the Eiffel Tower at night without clearance. Someone owns those rights also.