Previous fun facts about French life have let us in on a little secret: French people are picky. Each French city’s mayor or maire possesses the authority to establish policies that maintain public order. In Paris, rules vary according to arrondissement, or district.

So, the French are detail oriented. They like their rules and that’s okay.

However, their latest regulation—on copyright—is so strict that it’s funny. La Tour Eiffel, the Eiffel Tower’s official website states that although snapping some photos of the famous landmark is alright in the daylight, pictures are off limits when the sun goes down. My deepest condolences to anyone who ever dreamed of having a nighttime Parisian wedding photo shoot. The website explains, “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 structure of the Eiffel Tower itself is in the public domain. What isn’t in the public domain is the show put on at night during which different color lights are projected onto the landmark. That, instead, belongs to an artist who takes liberties and utilizes style to determine which lights, colors, speed the illuminations take place. Therefore, a reproduction of the work would require permission—and perhaps compensation—of said artist.

Essentially, it’s a time issue. The Eiffel Tower was built long before pretty lights were shone on it. This EU Information Society Directive includes a clause asserting that buildings in public spaces are to be in the public domain. However, France is one of the countries that refrained from adopting the directive into its law.  Italy and Belgium also refused the directive and retained their stricter policies. Belgium experiences the same issues with its Atomium, delineating on its website that “the image of the Atomium is protected and can only be used under certain conditions…Prices depend on whether it is to be used for a cultural, educational or commercial purpose.”

One must ask: when copyright law restricts something so large, so famous, and so iconic, how can it truly be enforced?

Wikipedia pages are being careful about it. Atomium pages include censored images or photographs of Atomium models. Poor Instagram will probably never see the legal light show. Illegal, however, can be found by a simple search of #eiffeltower. Google Images is chock-full o’ examples.

Ultimately, the regulation probably isn’t causing any tourists severe angst. That doesn’t, however, detract from the fact that it is copyrighted and nighttime Eiffel Tower pictures constitute infringement. We may take for granted our ability to legally Instagram post Lady Liberty at 3:00am with abandon.

The post Your Nighttime Eiffel Tower Pictures Are Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

Revenge porn is now legal in New York. The issue occurs when a person posts nude photographs of an ex-lover on the internet as a way to embarrass and degrade the ex. The photographs are often exchanged willingly while love blossoms, but when that same love wilts, the images change from intimate gifts to dangerous weapons that can seriously damage a person’s reputation.

For example, in the New York case People v. Barber, the defendant tweeted a nude photograph of his ex-girlfriend and shared it with her sister and employer. While the court acknowledged the “reprehensible” nature of the defendant’s conduct, it nonetheless found him innocent of any crime.

The problem concerns the specific language of New York’s law. In most states, you cannot take a nude photograph of a person without that person’s knowledge or consent. This rule does not apply, however, to situations where a person willingly gives a naked photograph to another. The New York court latched onto this distinction and dismissed the case.

While this particular dismissal was based on the language of the statute, some critics wonder if legislation specifically targeting revenge porn might violate freedom of speech rights. The American Civil Liberties Union opposed a draft to California’s revenge porn bill on the grounds that “the posting of otherwise lawful speech or images even if offensive or emotionally distressing is constitutionally protected. The speech must constitute a true threat or violate another otherwise lawful criminal law, such as stalking or harassment statute, in order to be made illegal.” Those who oppose a statute criminalizing revenge porn highlight the fact that the photographs were freely given and are, in essence, the property of the receiver to do as he wishes.

In contrast, another angle to the problem concerns the ubiquity and permanence of the internet and anything posted to it. Search engines allow anyone to instantly access everything ever posted about a person. Employers, colleagues, and friends all have the ability to discover information about you posted online. This makes a naked photograph in the hands of a scornful ex-flame particularly dangerous and powerful. Put simply: there is no real way to remove something from the internet, and search engines organize what is on the internet with terrifying accurateness and efficiency. An individual risks permanent reputational damage from revenge porn.

While anyone can suffer from revenge porn, the pernicious practice more often negatively affects women. Drafters of revenge porn statutes must also analyze this issue focusing on how it relates to sexual harassment and the discrimination of women. The issue does not affect men in the same way, and drafters need to scrutinize whether or not their stance on revenge porn has any latent sexist, misogynistic, or patriarchal impulses.

Revenge porn constitutes a particularly modern problem. Numerous themes percolate, including changing mores, technological advancement, sexual harassment and discrimination, freedom of speech, and the chaos of unreciprocated love. In New York, the court has signaled to the legislature to fix the problem. Whether and how the state chooses to draft a statute speaks to which themes the state decides to value.

—

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Court OKs Revenge Porn; Will the Legislature Act? appeared first on Law Street.