hurry up and photograph as many as possible before the law actually passes?

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&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

On 27/12/2007, Ayelie &lt;ayelie.at.large(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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). 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. 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

On Dec 27, 2007 10:22 AM, Alex G &lt;g1ggyman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

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.

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.

Casey Brown wrote: I was going to say that. Seems an interesting topic to discuss on the country at wikimania2008. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Casey Brown wrote: I was going to say that. Seems an interesting topic to discuss on the country at wikimania2008.