Originally Posted by zardoz71
Well one of the points the wanted was to harmonize Freedom of Panorama for the EU. ... etc.
You might have heard of the lawsuit in the USA, in which Barbra Streisand sued a photographer who made a continuous panorama of the California coast, in which Streisand's estate could be seen. The suit was dismissed, presumably because her estate was a small part of a large work, and it was not about her.
Even in the USA, a high-quality faithful photo of public domain artwork is usually protected by copyright. That is, if you take the photo, then you have the copyright to that specific photo. I can still take my own photo, which is not covered by your copyright. Wikipedia has maintained that a low-quality photo (in terms of file size), not suitable for commercial use, is a "fair use" documentation; status of that argument is unknown to me.
And, if the public-domain artwork is privately owned (often the case), then the owner may prohibit photos, even if the work is publicly visible (such as, on loan to a public museum). The rationale is that the private owner's contract with the museum, is that the museum will not permit photos. Then the museum admits visitors only on condition that they take no photos of certain works (it's in the fine print); or if they do sneak a photo, then copyright is automatically transferred to the original work's owner.
As for those photos of the entrance to the Louvre, one possibility is that I am misinformed. Another is that the photos have no commercial value other than as documentation, and the copyright holder doesn't care or doesn't think it is worth pursuing.
I don't know about the EU, but in the USA, the government does not initiate copyright enforcement except upon complaint by the copyright holder. This is because the government does not know whether or not the copies are properly licensed (which they may be).
In many nations, the creator of a work cannot release it directly to public domain without copyright notice. The correct procedure is to assert copyright, then license it freely to anyone.
As for the Eiffel Tower: Due to its age, it is past copyright protection. Another factor might be whether it is government-owned (I really don't know who owns it). But the lighting is a contemporary "performance" or "coordination" that retains copyright.
In terms of images on the Internet, it is often argued that if the web site makes any money by any means, then it is commercial. Merely running a single ad would do that. Offering a product for sale, or perhaps even providing a link to a different site that sells a product (if the first site gets a cut) might be a problem.
Copyright laws go back to the era when there was no such thing as low-quality, non-commercial usage. The only means of distribution was print, which necessarily involves investment and work effort, for a printed product that would lose money if it were free. There was no concept that anyone could take photos from a phone, scale them to small size, and post them at no cost for anyone in the world to see in a matter of minutes.