http://themetaversejournal.disqus.com/Australia's premiere virtual worlds news serviceenSat, 26 May 2007 01:10:22 -0000http://www.metaversejournal.com/2007/05/25/icons-under-scrutiny/#comment-1323080That's so lame!<br><br>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.<br><br>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... <br><br>It's taking the argument to a new level and in my opinion is just really stupid to even have a problem with it.MarsoupsSat, 26 May 2007 01:10:22 -0000http://www.metaversejournal.com/2007/05/25/icons-under-scrutiny/#comment-1323082Of 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.Bailey HalberdFri, 25 May 2007 22:04:18 -0000