I love the way we Wiki*edians can get into such esoteric debates! There is
not many places where on the one mailiing list you'll be discussing the
finer points of photographic publication rights and the next day you'll be
discussing the best way to write an article about a horserace.

That said, is it just me or is this particular thread making a mountain out
of a molehill? On a strict reading of the rules I suppose that would mean we
would have to delete every photo of Uluru? But really - is that likely? When
this point was raised, was this more as a hypothetical or was there a
genuine problem that we envisaged coming afoul of?

-Liam

On 11/13/08, Gnangarra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Email - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914
Skype - Wittylama
Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to