I understand that, but really I don't think that's what they mean. Does
anyone have a link to the details? I'm sure they'll lay it out more clearly
in the actual laws... without being able to distribute *photographs* of the
buildings tourism could go smack, as most photographers are not going to
want to pay and those photos are part of the whole reason why Egypt is such
a popular tourist destination. I'm pretty certain they mean replicas of
monuments and artifacts that are created (such as the stated example of the
ones in Las Vegas).
More particularly, note "the law would apply to full-scale replicas of any
object in any museum in Egypt." Is a photograph considered a "full-scale
replica"? It's a 2D representation, I doubt they intend to include these in
the law.
Let's find some more sources and read the fine print before worrying our
heads off here.
On Dec 26, 2007 3:28 PM, Rama Rama <ramaneko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A photograph is a replica of a two-dimensional object.
And it can also be
argued to be a "replica" of a three-dimensioanl artwork (as in "derived
work").
-- Rama
On Dec 26, 2007 9:16 PM, Ayelie < ayelie.at.large(a)gmail.com> wrote:
People... this applies to REPLICAS of the
monuments and artifacts, not
to photographs of them. Read the article. :P
--
Ayelie
(Editor at Large)
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l