On a strict reading of the rule we would only have to delete photos taken
after the date at which the law was imposed as law was retrospective

Which is why I said we have to know for each location when it was publish as
being imposed and what the requirements were at the time the photo was
taken.

Alternative as I said as far as my photo's are concern I wasnt made aware of
any issues restrictions prior to taking the photos, and providing I can
approach on a public road without interference then I'll continue to take
photo's.



2008/11/13 Liam Wyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 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
>
>


-- 
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