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