While the preservation of the cauldron and the statues of women who have marked the history of France seems to be unanimous, the retention of the Olympic rings designed by Pierre de Coubertin on the Eiffel Tower is sparking debate and dividing opinion. The mayor of Paris has just stated that the decision was up to her, while the Minister of Culture is pleading for compliance with procedures. The debate is certainly not over, but it would seem very difficult to maintain ad vitam eternam the rings on the Eiffel Tower in light of three legal considerations.
The first lies in the Heritage Code. Since 1964, the Eiffel Tower has been listed as a historic monument, which means that the city of Paris, the owner of the tower, cannot dispose of it as it pleases. Any modification to the exterior appearance must be subject to specific procedures and prior agreement from the Minister of Culture. Faced with protection deemed less effective than that of classification, the city of Paris did not wish to voluntarily classify the tower despite the wish expressed at the beginning of 2024 by the Minister of Culture, who was also able to classify it automatically without the city’s agreement… The associations Urgences Patrimoine France and La France en Partage have therefore decided to take all possible action in recent days to “resolve this historical anomaly and ensure that the (classification) procedure is completed”.
The second difficulty lies in the Environmental Code. Indeed, the rings constitute advertising, namely a form intended to inform the public or attract its attention. However, the law provides for a ban on any advertising displays on historic monuments, except to allow the financing of restoration work. Also, several exceptional laws, taken for the organization of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, have derogated from this rule in order to affix the rings on the tower or the agitos on the Arc de Triomphe. And the latter must disappear fifteen days after the end of the games. It is difficult to see how the city of Paris could circumvent these provisions.
The third difficulty lies in the Intellectual Property Code because the tower is likely to be protected under copyright law. The defense of moral rights can play a significant role because, without the agreement of the architects’ beneficiaries, any modification made to this building could undermine its integrity. The descendants of Gustave Eiffel have already expressed their public disapproval since “the Eiffel Tower is not intended as an advertising antenna”. Nevertheless, this moral right is not inviolable and the city of Paris could infringe it on the condition that this alteration is made strictly necessary by a legitimate reason – aesthetic, technical or public safety – drawn from the adaptation to new needs or the evolution of the public service. In this case, such an attempt would be quite futile.
The rings are trademarks of the International Olympic Committee. Is there not a risk of complicating the use of the image of the Eiffel Tower – already subject to authorization because night lighting is subject to copyright – by adding rings over which the Committee could maintain real control in order to authorize or prohibit the use of captures of the Eiffel Tower during the day and at night due to the presence of its trademarks?
The legal obstacles are therefore numerous and difficult to reconcile. It is not insignificant that several associations have expressed their intention to take the matter to court if the city of Paris arbitrarily maintains these rings.
