As reported on news.com.au, there’s increasing scrutiny of iconic Aussie landmarks in SL and the copyright implications of their use. The two under the microscope at this stage are the Sydney Opera House (found on both the BigPond islands and the Australia sim) and Uluru (on the BigPond presence).
The news.com.au article asserts that Telstra have confirmed they didn’t approach the traditional owners of Uluru for permission, so this is a grey area that may to attract a lot of attention. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald however, quotes Telstra denying breaching any copyright. Either way, the resolution of the issue will set a precedent that will hopefuly provide some clarity for future development.
What are your thoughts – should people be free to replicate iconic Australian landmarks in a virtual world? And if so, under what conditions?
(Thanks to the Mindtracks blog for pointing to the story)
Of course it is OK to present an image of these landmarks in a virtual world. It is no more illegal/immoral than it is to take photographs of those same icons. A virtual world representation is nothing more than a 3D image of that icon. It should be under no more or less control than any other type of photograph.
That’s so lame!
Even though these icons exist – and we invented a thing about ownership — I really don’t think Uluru *belongs* to anybody, it belongs to the people, it is a work of art that was created geologically in earths history, LONG before white *or* dark man came along! For them to say that they had no permission is the weakest argument I’ve ever heard.
Everybody has a right to replicate any building… It’s not a copyright infringement to make a replica of the eiffel tower, or to draw the opera house on a piece of paper…
It’s taking the argument to a new level and in my opinion is just really stupid to even have a problem with it.
Of course it is OK to present an image of these landmarks in a virtual world. It is no more illegal/immoral than it is to take photographs of those same icons. A virtual world representation is nothing more than a 3D image of that icon. It should be under no more or less control than any other type of photograph.
That’s so lame!
Even though these icons exist – and we invented a thing about ownership — I really don’t think Uluru *belongs* to anybody, it belongs to the people, it is a work of art that was created geologically in earths history, LONG before white *or* dark man came along! For them to say that they had no permission is the weakest argument I’ve ever heard.
Everybody has a right to replicate any building… It’s not a copyright infringement to make a replica of the eiffel tower, or to draw the opera house on a piece of paper…
It’s taking the argument to a new level and in my opinion is just really stupid to even have a problem with it.