The Italian parliament passed a similar law in 2004. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/OTRS_Ticket:_200...
-- Rama
On Dec 26, 2007 11:19 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7160057.stm
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_building_collapse
it's all a question of priorities :-S
oscar
On Dec 26, 2007 11:19 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7160057.stm
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
hurry up and photograph as many as possible before the law actually passes?
On Dec 26, 2007 5:19 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7160057.stm
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Dec 26, 2007 4:40 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
hurry up and photograph as many as possible before the law actually passes?
That's not guaranteed to save the day: are we certain that this law would not be non-retroactive ? It could very well be.
As I see things, there is an increasing trend of passing laws and regulations which cast a doubt on the legality of taking and sharing photographs. This effectively prevents us from doing it since we must be able to guarantee the legality of what we do, and because we cannot challenge these laws in court (I suspect that most of them could be argued to violate the spirit of the Bern Conventions).
It is very revealing of the way some countries see museums as mercantile, monopolistic companies, rather than as means to braodcast culture.
-- Rama
Rama Rama wrote:
On Dec 26, 2007 4:40 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
hurry up and photograph as many as possible before the law actually passes?That's not guaranteed to save the day: are we certain that this law would not be non-retroactive ? It could very well be.
How's that? I make a photo, and free it. Say it's on Public Domain. How is X museum going to claim that photo cannot be used because i didn't aks them a permission they didn't require at that time?
It's bad enough that they require a permission for the photos done inside (the copyright of the air between the camera and the object not being dirty? xDD) but retrocactiviy would be a total nonsense... At least from a point of view not earning money from it.
People... this applies to REPLICAS of the monuments and artifacts, not to photographs of them. Read the article. :P
-- Ayelie (Editor at Large)
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 27/12/2007, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I'm reading it about it on a different article http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,22972831-5014090,00.html which says:
However, the law "does not forbid local or international artists from profiting from drawings and other reproductions of pharaonic and Egyptian monuments from all eras - as long as they don't make exact copies."
"Artists have the right to be inspired by everything that surrounds them, including monuments," he said.
Potential fine print argument - if you make lighting, camera angles, perspective etc unique enough, you can claim copyright? I'm not so great with derivative works, perhaps someone could clarify that. I wonder if we'll have a lot of photos looking up the Sphinx's nose at twilight, now :-s
We aren't profiting from these works (right?)...from what Riana quoted it seems that the law speaks against that...
-Giggy
On Dec 27, 2007 9:10 AM, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/12/2007, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I'm reading it about it on a different article http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,22972831-5014090,00.html which says:
However, the law "does not forbid local or international artists from profiting from drawings and other reproductions of pharaonic and Egyptian monuments from all eras - as long as they don't make exact copies."
"Artists have the right to be inspired by everything that surrounds them, including monuments," he said.
Potential fine print argument - if you make lighting, camera angles, perspective etc unique enough, you can claim copyright? I'm not so great with derivative works, perhaps someone could clarify that. I wonder if we'll have a lot of photos looking up the Sphinx's nose at twilight, now :-s
-- Riana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Dec 27, 2007 10:22 AM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
We aren't profiting from these works (right?)...from what Riana quoted it seems that the law speaks against that...
Material on Commons must be free for commercial reuse, even though the Wikimedia projects don't use it for commercial purposes.
Whatever the exact fine prints on the egyptian law, what is unquestionably worrying is the general, international trend of setting up minefields in front of us (us = Commons contributors).
We seem to have gotten past the point where our problem is the epidermic uncomfort of the museum guard on the field who's worried about getting yield at. Now, people with high-hand digital cameras are in the sights of the museum directorates, and sometimes even of the parliaments themselves.
*This* is indeed worrying. -- Rama
On Dec 27, 2007 2:47 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 27, 2007 10:22 AM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
We aren't profiting from these works (right?)...from what Riana quoted it seems that the law speaks against that...
Material on Commons must be free for commercial reuse, even though the Wikimedia projects don't use it for commercial purposes.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Riana:
However, the law "does not forbid local or international artists from profiting from drawings and other reproductions of pharaonic and Egyptian monuments from all eras - as long as they don't make exact copies."
"Artists have the right to be inspired by everything that surrounds them, including monuments," he said.
Potential fine print argument - if you make lighting, camera angles, perspective etc unique enough, you can claim copyright? I'm not so great with derivative works, perhaps someone could clarify that. I wonder if we'll have a lot of photos looking up the Sphinx's nose at twilight, now :-s
If they make explicit reference to drawings as an exception to this law it's well because they are targeting pictures. Imho, this law can be compare with new picture prohibition rule at Louvre Museum while they will not applied it strictly (Egyptian government or Louvre have no benefit to prohibit all pictures), but they will use this law at handle some particular situations. Any way, it's really a scandal to try to steal a world heritage! I can understand they increase the fees for visiting monument, but try to get copyright on 5000 yo monuments it's really unacceptable.
Aoineko
PS: Sorry for my poor English.
How's that? I make a photo, and free it. Say it's on Public Domain. How is X museum going to claim that photo cannot be used because i didn't aks them a permission they didn't require at that time?
It's bad enough that they require a permission for the photos done inside (the copyright of the air between the camera and the object not being dirty? xDD) but retrocactiviy would be a total nonsense... At least from a point of view not earning money from it.
It's not a question of morality, it's a question of law. Non-retroacivity is not guaranteed in al juridiction under all circumstances, and I do not know whether it would be in this case.
-- Rama
On 26/12/2007, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
How's that? I make a photo, and free it. Say it's on Public Domain. How is X museum going to claim that photo cannot be used because i didn't aks them a permission they didn't require at that time?
Pretty much happened under UK law with the switch from 50 to 70 years. Before the internet it didn't really present the same problem.
In any case Western civilization has spent the last few thousand years removing stuff from Egypt not of which will be impacted. I see little reason to be concerned.
In any case Western civilization has spent the last few thousand years removing stuff from Egypt not of which will be impacted. I see little reason to be concerned.
What is of actual concern is not one or a few museums having restrictions, but a general pattern of museums and governments imposing a vision of museums as monopolistic capitalist companies rather than as means of spreading culture.
Clearly, some people able to take decision see museums making money as an end, rather than as a mean to accomplish an end of educating the public. To enforce this vision (on which there is no public debate), they take decisions which effectively negate the benefits of the Berne Convention for the general public.
You can see this sort of trends in Egypt, Italy, France, United Kingdom and elsewhere.
THIS is a reason to be concerned all right. -- Rama
Oh dear! Copyrighted pyramids? I wonder what's next...
RedCoat
On 26/12/2007, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
hurry up and photograph as many as possible before the law actually passes?
I was going to say that. Seems an interesting topic to discuss on the country at wikimania2008.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Lets *not* go there....
-Giggy
On Dec 27, 2007 4:58 AM, Christopher Buttigieg c.buttigieg1510@gmail.com wrote:
Oh dear! Copyrighted pyramids? I wonder what's next...
RedCoat
On 26/12/2007, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
hurry up and photograph as many as possible before the law actually passes?
I was going to say that. Seems an interesting topic to discuss on the country at wikimania2008.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Platonides wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
hurry up and photograph as many as possible before the law actually passes?
I was going to say that. Seems an interesting topic to discuss on the country at wikimania2008.
very good point. We could hold a session over licencing issues, with Pyramids being a red line...
Eck... if we were to make a LOT of money over sponsorship at Wikimania, we could held the license session and make some PR in giving back part of the money (with support from the sponsor of course) to organizations in charge of managing the old pyramids.
The idea would be ----> keep it free ----> public will help support the common good.
(or does that seem too complex ?)
ant
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:19:18 +0200, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I remember that Greece has a similar law, apparently affecting photographs, too. Maybe more than a year ago Commons community decided not to care about such a silly law, which is legally possible and morally just.