Which Eiffel Tower Shot Might be Illegal?

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Hi Greg, I'm so glad it will help...And hope you did, are or will enjoy Paris IMMENSELY!

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Thanks so much xtalfu... I'll adjust the wording to make it more accurate!

Alexandre Kreisman replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Unfortunately, with GDPR, the law apply to every EU citizen. You can not use it in any commercial way without a written document. As the image of a person s considered a personal information. This is what a lawyer would say along a lot of person. Yet the law was created and defined so that personal information could lead to know who that person is. In Germany for example, you cannot have in your image a building (or part of) without consent. There are a lot of rules, yet I've never really heard that photographer were faced to the authorities. There are also. loophole in the law, such as being a press photographer, photographing to keep a record of history, and some other.

Walter Reumkens replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

This issue of personal rights is generally regulated in the EU, supplemented by national additions. With regard to my home country of Germany, I can only say that, according to current legislation, "xtalfu" has described it correctly. However, it is interpreted even more narrowly. Not only do you need permission to publish the photo, you also need permission to take it in the first place. This is even more important for the daytime photo than for the night-time photo, because the faces are not recognisable in the latter. The regulations are likely to be similar in France. In addition, due to the mentality of the people in Germany, it is very rare to get permission to take a photo. *** Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Thanks Alexandre! Your comment grabbed my attention when you said one "cannot include a building (or part of)" in photos in Germany without consent! That hasn't been my experience, and my initial reaction was to wonder if this applied to specific TYPES of buildings-- commercial, industrial, governmental or military for instance. I did a Google search, and this is the interesting summary it offered: ***** "In Germany, photographing buildings from public, accessible areas is generally permitted under 'Panoramafreiheit' (Freedom of Panorama, § 59 UrhG), even for commercial use. [Also see the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama ] You can take pictures of building exteriors from the street, provided no ladders, drones, or special equipment are used. Key legal points regarding building photography in Germany: * Public Space Requirement: The photo must be taken from public property (e.g., sidewalks, streets, public parks). * No Aids: You cannot use ladders, scaffolding, or drones (without special permission) to take the shot, as this would violate the 'normal viewer' perspective. * Interiors and Private Property: Photographing the inside of a building (e.g., a museum or private home) generally requires the owner's permission. * Temporary Art/Installations: The freedom of panorama typically applies to permanent fixtures. Temporary art installations on buildings may still be protected by copyright. * Copyrighted Designs: While you can photograph the exterior of a unique building, you cannot reproduce it in a way that infringes on the architect's copyright (e.g., selling replicas). * Exceptions: Taking photos from within a private courtyard or private property, even if open to the public, may require permission from the owner. These laws are primarily derived from the German Copyright Act (§ 59 UrhG) and ensure that public spaces can be photographed without needing consent from every property owner." ***** All the photos I've taken in Germany were on guided tours, and that would have largely satisfied the "public place requirement." Sorry about the way comments force single-paragraph formatting, and make it hard to display information! Many thanks for the interesting intel, Alexandre!

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Very interesting Walter... thanks for the detail. It suggests a need for even amateur photographers to check the rules for each country they visit! When one of our tours visited Germany, nobody raised an issue about photographing recognizable people in town squares and shops at any time. Same in France. Probably as everywhere, a LOT will depend on how individuals feel about it!

Alexandre Kreisman replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Indeed Walter, If recognizable, you need permission to take the picture, then to exploit it!

Alexandre Kreisman replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Hey Dave, This is very interesting, thank you for correcting me! I do not spend to much time in Germany, although Europe's in general is pretty conservative, which I find odd, as street photography was invented by French guys mostly. For me, the need to keep a accurate record of the people in time + fine art photography should cover it and is my main goal. A note though, as long as a musician performs, you do not need any kind of authorisation according to gdpr.

Walter Reumkens replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

That's not true, Alexandre. I'm only speaking for Germany. "Who is allowed to take photos at events? Photography is generally permitted at public events. However, the personal rights and consent of the persons photographed must be respected in order to avoid legal disputes. What are image usage rights? Image usage rights determine how an image may be used. They are usually specified by a licence that provides information about permitted uses and restrictions. How do you obtain an image licence for event photos? An image licence for event photos is usually obtained through an agreement between the photographer and the image user. This licence defines the limits and possibilities of image use." It's a very complicated story. But where there is no plaintiff, there is no defendant. However, there are warnings.

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

You're very welcome Alexandre, and thank you for those interesting added thoughts. I can't tell you how many times I've heard street buskers here in the U.S. and in Europe performing copyrighted songs. And I'm pretty sure they didn't seek formal permission or pay fees! Ansel Adams-- who chose to pursue photography instead of becoming a concert pianist-- believed that negatives were like musical scores and prints were like performances!

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Hi Gary, Don 't think so! If too many such "smaller" situations cropped up, it might even overwhelm their department. So I'd guess they wouldn't even respond.

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Hi John, That might be why I didn't hear back from them! And a lot depends on how big their agency really is. One would think it would need to be well staffed if they're trying to protect copyrights. And you are so right about seeing the rest of France. But we still managed to find quite a few unique, worthwhile things in Paris that only a few locals knew (at least back in 2009)!

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 18/02/2026

Hi Arthur! An "absolute expectation of privacy" in both commercial and private photography doesn't always seem to be the case. According to other comments, it may be in much of the EU. But it's not in the U.S. Our two-tier system makes things more complicated. The federal government has some broad powers to oversee official copyrights through the Patent Office and courts. But at least for now, the Constitution and state legislatures grant states individual powers over personal privacy. In our specific case, according to associations of professional photographers, in all states, photographers generally do not need signed releases to take, sell or publish photos of people in public places, as long as the images are for news, artistic or editorial purposes. Releases are required if photos are used commercially— such as in movies or advertising— and that's the case nationwide. (But California, New York, Florida, Illinois and Tennessee are notable for adding more rules about commercial uses.) The situation is similar to the rules for telling people they're being recorded in interviews. State rules vary widely. When I worked as a technology journalist, I wasn't "chasing scoops," so I told everyone I interviewed I would tape them for purposes of accuracy. But I didn't have to. My state permitted unannounced taping if "just one party" knew about it-- and that party would have been me!

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 19/02/2026

Jukka, I was hoping someone would make your very pertinent comment! No, despite all of the photos Henri Cartier-Bresson took of the Tower day and night he was never sued. And I suppose he (plus millions of other photographers) COULD technically have been, since Eiffel's French copyright on the Tower finally expired in 1993! The probable reason for the lack of lawsuits is that the structure itself "entered the public domain" by default decades before modern copyright enforcement of images became common.

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 19/02/2026

You aren't the first to feel that way about the Tower, my friend! When it was first built, many Parisians wanted it torn down after its exhibition ended. One reason was that it towered over the rest of the city. I'm not sure who "Whitener" was though? (But I do happen to share your feelings about the London Eye, though history may prove us wrong about that!)

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 19/02/2026

Hahahaha it was supposed to be whoever but my iPhone decided to correct it or rather incorrect it ! The London eye is much worse - as iconic as a fairground ride

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 19/02/2026

Thanks Ibraar... "Whoever" works SOOOO much better there!

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 19/02/2026

I SHALL remember that Christof! I did something similar during a windjammer Caribbean tour. One morning, we docked at a French island with a nude beach. Before we left the ship, the captain seriously warned us about taking photos there. We could look, but if we shot, arrest was a real possibility. So I and another photographer were down on the nude beach when one of the island's death-defying local planes plunged down right above our heads to land on a dirt strip only 100 yards away. The other photographer and I automatically started snapping frames of the plane as it passed over us! IMMEDIATELY, I felt a sharp slap on my shoulder. It was a seriously un-amused gendarme. I smiled, pointed up at the sky, and repeated Tatoo's immortal line from "Fantasy Island": "The Plane... The Plane..." We weren't arrested.

Dave Powell replied:

Comment posted: 22/02/2026

Hello Omar... I'm very glad you liked them! Yours may be the shortest, most accurate, summary of the situation. Even in situations where photos are prohibited, some people may not object. There was one time here in Massachusetts when I hadn't seen any signs against photography and took a non-flash shot of a museum sculpture. A monitor came up seemingly out of nowhere to remind me it was prohibited. I smiled and showed him the digital image. He grinned broadly, said "Very nice sir," and walked away. I'm often more fascinated by shadows in art galleries than the art itself. And I had just grabbed an image of a complex wire sculpture's shadow on the wood floor. Only later did I read in the exhibition catalog that the artist himself had actually created the sculpture to cast fascinating shadows!