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