There's a lot of talk about how French law regarding photography would differ from what is in place in the rest of the world. When somebody happens to actually cite a norm, it turns out that it is just like exactly in the rest of the world.
The blog cited in post #150 ends up quoting norms whereby you can take pictures of anybody in the street without their consent (as is everywhere). Publishing follows the old common rules: commercial use needs release, non-commercial use doesn't. Not hard to grasp. And yes, derogatory use is not admitted without consent. That's more or less all there is to know, in France as elsewhere.
The Tour Eiffel at night can be photographed and published just like any other building, and the Moulin Rouge can also be photographed just like any other building. There are laws for buildings, there are not specific laws for Tour Eiffel and Moulin Rouge.
As a stock photographer I wrote twice to the Tour Eiffel guys - they have a web site where they say that I cannot take pictures of the tower at night - asking them to quote the norm which they think should apply. I asked that once in French and once in English, stating both times that in case of no answer I will obviously continue to take pictures of the Tower in every way and to distribute it as I see fit. Never received an answer.
The problem is that ignorance runs so high that I know a couple of agencies that have withdrawn their pictures of the Moulin Rouge after receiving an email from the cabaret. Your rights are useless if you don't know, understand and exercise them. We'll end up living in a society governed by dogs' barks rather than laws if we don't begin understanding the basic principles of Law.
PS The only peculiarities I know are:
USA and Belgium: sculptors have rights on publication of pictures of sculptures also when they are on permanent exhibition (normally a sculptor would not have right on the publication of pictures of his work if it is on permanent exhibition).
Germany: the "right of panorama" is explicitly restricted to the ground level, it does not apply to pictures taken from a higher floor (such as a picture taken from a restaurant terrace). That's according to cited jurisprudence and one always ask to wonder how correctly the sentence(s) is read or understood.
In any case this only refers to publishers. Photographers, by and large, take pictures, maybe sell them, and it's generally fine. It's publication which crosses lines. Those are crossed by the publisher, not the photographer.