The big risk would be to those resident in Australia.

Lets take Uluru because I've been down that burrow there is much discussion
on en about 
this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uluru#Photo_of_.22banned.22_zone

Basically assuming one can afford the cost of the permit its time limited
and use restricted a photographer cant go in and take speculative
photographs the purpose of the photo needs to be defined and then its use is
restricted to that purpose for a time period 1-5 years from date taken.
After the period the expires to republish the photographer needs to reapply
for the permit.

Vague memory of an advertising campaign that use an Image of Uluru with
rubbish in front it of was stopped because the permit didnt allow for the
represent. I not sure how far thru the court system it went but I do
remember that at least an initial injunction was granted to stop the ad
until the issue was resolved.



2008/11/13 Peter Ansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2008/11/13 Enoch Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> 2008/11/13 Peter Ansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>>
>>> Would it matter is Australia had a bilateral treaty regarding these
>>> things with France? Does anyone know if any of these type of treaties exist?
>>>
>>
>>  There would need to be a bilateral treaty and local French legislation
>> that says that they recognise this particular offence under French law.
>> Australian laws (generally) never have extraterritorial effect.
>>
>
> Rightio. But if they ever set foot in Australia they would be liable. Risky
> business still.
>
> Peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>


-- 
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to