No Photos! at the Louvre

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@> wrote:

> I guess I'll have to be careful the next time someone puts on a rock
> concert inside the Louvre.

Concerts happen very regularly at the Louvre.

--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
transpose "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@> wrote:

> If the photographer is, say, 5 metres away from his subject and the
> railing of the summit is 50 cm lower than the camera, that's a slope
> of 1 in 10. For that slope to reach the ground from a height of 320
> metres,

Do an experiment: walk up the Montmartre hill and look at the summit of
the Eiffel tower.

I live in a flat some 50 meters above the ground with direct view over
the Arc de Triomphe (hi Magda!). I regularly see flashes coming from the
roof of the Arc, and my flat is in Montparnasse, that is several
kilometres away.
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
transpose "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me

stanislas.dekertanguy@lesptt.net (Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:

>Martin <me@> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:36:30 +0200, Tim Challenger
>> <tim.challenger@aon.at> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:11:53 +0200, Stanislas de Kertanguy wrote:
>> >
>> >> To add to the discussion, I'm not sure whether restoration work
>> >> conducted on many of the paintings exposed at the Louvre is - or is not
>> >> - protected by copyright. I'll do a search.
>> >
>> >LOL!
>>
>> Only the newer paint?
>
>The Code de la Propriete Intellectuelle says in Article 122-3:
>
>[FRENCH] Les auteurs de traductions, d'adaptations, transformations ou
>arrangements des oeuvres de l'esprit jouissent de la protection
>instituée par le présent code sans préjudice des droits de l'auteur de
>l'oeuvre originale.(...) [/FRENCH]
>
>Translation: Authors of traductions, adaptations, transformations or
>arrangings of "mind works" are granted with the intellectual property
>protection, without prejudice of the rights of the initial artist.

I don't think restoration work falls within any of those categories.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@> wrote in message
news:ik78k11mre5cbk5pbma2ceecp2ffvofc81@...
> Keith W writes:
>
>> Unless it happens to take place in those countries that protect
>> performing
>> rights, this includes almost all EU countries, the USA, Canada,
>> Australia,
>> New Zealand etc
>
> You're confusing performance rights with copyright in recordings.

No that would be you confusing performance rights with perfomers rights


The public performance right allows the copyright holder to control
the public performance of certain copyrighted works.

Perfomers rights are the rights granted to a performer by virtue
of a performance.

<UK Legal protection>
A performer has the right to control the broadcasting of his or
her live performance to the public. The permission of a performer
must also be sought before a recording of the live performance is made.


Once a recording of the performance has been made, the performer's
permission is also needed to make copies of that recording.
A performer may be entitled to remuneration in respect of broadcasting,
other types of communication to the public by electronic transmission,
public performance and rental of those copies.

The performer's permission is required for including a recording in
one type of communication to the public by electronic transmission,
that is a transmission where the recording is made available to
members of the public from a place and at a time individually chosen by
them.

</UK Legal protection>


Keith

Tim Challenger wrote:

>
> >>
> > How about the person who WROTE the music? Who PERFORMED it?
>
> The copyright belongs to the writer. The performance rights generally go to
> the publisher.
> The definition of "copyright", "performance rights" and "originator's
> rights" differ from country to country, in any case.
>

In theory, it belongs to the writer. Unfortunately, there are cases of people
new to the scene who sent their work out to be produced, they get the usual
letters of rejection, and then the work ends up being produced. Their may be a
few minor changes, the biggest alteration being the name of the author.

This happened to a friend of mine. He wrote a treatment for a movie, and was
asked to develop it. It was eventually rejected. I had read the script (still
have it around the house). Then one night I saw it on television. It was the
same story, same characters (with specific traits) , same issues, but at the
end of the movie the credits listed a well known writer and a prominent lawyer
as the authors.

On 2005-09-30, Timothy Kroesen <TKROESEN@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> You are ASSuming they weren't taking pictures of a closer subject on the
> top...

They aren't. Go up there and see for yourself.

This is unbelievable, if Mixi said the sun rises in the East, you people
would insist it rises in the North.

It's no stretch of the imagination to think someone on the observation
decks are photographing someone else on the deck; Paris being the
*backdrop*. In any case the flash could easily be visible from the
ground no matter what the photo composition was...

Tim K

"Jesper Lauridsen" <rorschak@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:434c340f$0$11696$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net ...
> On 2005-09-30, Timothy Kroesen <TKROESEN@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > You are ASSuming they weren't taking pictures of a closer subject on
the
> > top...
>
> They aren't. Go up there and see for yourself.
>
> This is unbelievable, if Mixi said the sun rises in the East, you
people
> would insist it rises in the North.