Starship Asterisk*

A Lunar Corona over Paris

Explanation: Why does a cloudy moon sometimes appear colorful? The effect, called a lunar corona, is created by the quantum mechanical diffraction of light around individual, similarly-sized water droplets in an intervening but mostly-transparent cloud. Since light of different colors has different wavelengths, each color diffracts differently. Lunar coronae are one of the few quantum mechanical color effects that can be easily seen with the unaided eye. Solar coronae are also sometimes evident. The featured image was taken last month from Paris, France. The blue beacon emanating from the Eiffel Tower did not affect the colorful lunar corona.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

Wow, what a color bomb!


Well, I have seen colorful lunar coronas myself, but never anything like this!

And just look at how that intensely blue narrow laser beam of light emitted from the gold-illuminated Eiffel Tower seems to hit the lunar corona and light it up!

And there are green lights along the bridge in the foreground and bluish cyan white lights along the waterfront. And the gold color And the gold color of the illuminated Eiffel Tower seems to paint the clouds in the sky in a shade of muted orange, and the gold and blue colors of the building and the street lights and the lunar corona are reflected in the water.

Wowzers!

Ann

I wonder why in this case the color returns to blue on the outside edge of the ring. Nice image.

Illuminated Eiffel Tower at nighttime without special copyright disclaimer. That could mean trouble if the photo is used commercially.

In a nearby alternate universe, this image shows the Olympic torch being lit at the top of the Eiffel Tower by orbital laser! Haha, I wonder what they will actually do, the 2024 summer games in Paris are just a month or two away.

Astronymus wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 2:16 pm Illuminated Eiffel Tower at nighttime without special copyright disclaimer. That could mean trouble if the photo is used commercially.

What do you mean? The image is attributed to "Image Credit & Copyright: Valter Binotto". Isn't that enough?

There is a copyright on the actual lighting (at night) of the Eiffel Tower since it has an artistic twist. As a result, one cannot take photos of the Eiffel Tower lit at night and provide licensing for commercial purposes thereafter. The credit and copyright in the APOD is in relation to the photographer and appropriately so. The copyright restriction is directed at the photographer who took the photo and not the folks at APOD.

I recall that the lighting is turned off at 01:00 and which provides a way to bypass any commercial use if that is the ultimate goal.

By the way, that is a GREAT photo ... the colourarion is pure eye candy!!!

Ayiomamitis wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 6:21 pm There is a copyright on the actual lighting (at night) of the Eiffel Tower since it has an artistic twist. As a result, one cannot take photos of the Eiffel Tower lit at night and provide licensing for commercial purposes thereafter. The credit and copyright in the APOD is in relation to the photographer and appropriately so. The copyright restriction is directed at the photographer who took the photo and not the folks at APOD.

I recall that the lighting is turned off at 01:00 and which provides a way to bypass any commercial use if that is the ultimate goal.

Thanks. I had no idea!

In instances were a physical person is involved, there is a statute of limitations and which I recall is 70 years after they pass away. It is for this reason that some well-known books are now in print by third-party publishers and available at steep discounts since the authors have died and did so over 70 years ago.

In the case of the Eiffel Tower, there is a legal entity involved and which owns the copyright. As a result, waiting for 70 years for the lighting specialist to expire will not do it.

Some have suggested that challenging the existing law in relation to the Eiffel Tower in a court of law will quite possibly see its eventual defeat. However, who is willing to take on such a challenge?

Ayiomamitis wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 6:30 pm In instances were a physical person is involved, there is a statute of limitations and which I recall is 70 years after they pass away. It is for this reason that some well-known books are now in print by third-party publishers and available at steep discounts since the authors have died and did so over 70 years ago.

In the case of the Eiffel Tower, there is a legal entity involved and which owns the copyright. As a result, waiting for 70 years for the lighting specialist to expire will not do it.

Some have suggested that challenging the existing law in relation to the Eiffel Tower in a court of law will quite possibly see its eventual defeat. However, who is willing to take on such a challenge?

I imagine it's largely unenforceable outside of the EU.

Chris,

That is my suspicion as well. Only possible glitch is if some outfit has operations in both the EU and outside the EU (vis a vis a multi-national book publisher, media outfit etc) and where you could choose the venue to pursue the case.

Ayiomamitis wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 9:11 am Chris,

That is my suspicion as well. Only possible glitch is if some outfit has operations in both the EU and outside the EU (vis a vis a multi-national book publisher, media outfit etc) and where you could choose the venue to pursue the case.

And how much you're willing to throw at lawyers. Always that.

Ayiomamitis wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 6:30 pm

Thanks for clearing everything up while I was away.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 6:22 pm Thanks. I had no idea!

There is even a pre-phrased copyright disclaimer for people who like to show their pictures but do not intent to use them commercially. Just to be safe. I use it as well as I have pictures of the tower on my gallery. Yet it isn't really neccessary. They have no problem with tourists or photography enthusiasts to take photos and show them around. So the statement often read on the internet that it is forbidden to take photos the illuminated tower at night is a misconception.
Fun fact: Look at the credits of movies picturing the tower in the back- or foreground. You'll always find the disclaimer in there.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 12:43 pm And how much you're willing to throw at lawyers. Always that.

Copyright is complicated anyway. There is no unified copyright in the EU but laws different from country to country. Countries like Germany or Austria for example do not know "copyright". They have something called "Urheberrecht" which is in some way similar to the anglo-american copyright but also provides more rights for the actual creator. That right owned by the creator is not for sale, can't be transferred or resigned. Instead the creator will transfer the "right to use". So, no one can take your creation from you. You just grant them the rights to use your creation by payment or charity. This right can even be passed on to relatives after the death of the creator.
Enforcing the different copyrights beyond country borders is another chapter. And also the rason you can't get some things in every country.