All Your Stonehenge Photos Are Belong To England 347
An anonymous reader writes "English Heritage, the organization that runs and manages various historical sites in the UK, such as Stonehenge, has apparently sent letters to various photo sharing and stock photo sites claiming that any photo of Stonehenge that is being sold violates its rights, and only English Heritage can get commercial benefit from such photos. In fact, they're asking for all money made from such photos, stating: 'all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.' As one recipient noted, this seems odd, given that English Heritage has only managed Stonehenge 'for 27 of the monument's 4,500 year old history.'"
First Henge (Score:5, Funny)
Brought to you by the aliens who built it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well if they get news of this outrage they may well come and take it back leaving English Heritage unhenged in addition to unhinged.
Re:First Henge (Score:5, Funny)
And they built it for good reason, too. Have you seen what they put under that place-marker? There's a prison whose sole purpose is to absolutely contain the most feared creature in the universe.
Er, so said the British TV show, anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"There's a prison whose sole purpose is to absolutely contain the most feared creature in the universe."
I hardly think we need to bring Jimmy Carter into this.
Simple: (Score:5, Insightful)
Step Two: Find some old stuff alying around that people seem to like.
Step Three: Claim "Ownership" of aforementioned stuff.
Step Four: PROFIT!!!
Re:Simple: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
they also better sue Microsoft for that picture of Stonehenge they distributed with their OS.
We win, we lose (Score:4, Interesting)
^^ +5 insightful,
they also better sue Microsoft for that picture of Stonehenge they distributed with their OS.
On the short term, that would be a win:
Two companies known for petty copyright claims are fighting each other in a lawsuit. Both lose money.
On the long term, we lose:
At first, more lawyers find work. But then they become unemployed. Unemployed lawyers may start searching for other things to sue (that's what they do, right?). Assuming that people cannot become more stupid, but the rules can become more stupid, it stands to reason that more lawyers means more (stupid) rules.
Re:We win, we lose (Score:4, Funny)
That is a wildly optimistic assumption. Both people and rules have repeatedly demonstrated an unlimited potential for stupidity. There is no reason to think either have bottomed out yet.
Re: (Score:3)
This whole debate could be simplified by asking one simple question:
- To whom does common property belong?
- Answer: The People from which all legitimate authority derives.
Stonehange is part of the British people's common property (just like air, water, roads), and it belongs to all, which means it is public domain and not copyrightable.
.
>>>Feedback on this comment system?
It sucks. I hate this dynamic index and can't get back to the classic (plain text) index.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Me, too. Once you preview, you have to click another buttong to fix any typos, and then preview again before posting.
What's worse is that moderation selections take effect immediately. I used to be able to moderate as I read through the comments, and if I really needed to moderate something near the bottom I could go back up and remove the moderation from an earlier comment and then submit them all at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but if you rotate the view, you'll see some kind of constable guy standing right next to the GoogleCam. Even da popo be cockblockin' royalties from the Herr'tage wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Simple: (Score:4, Informative)
When I visited it, we weren't allowed to go inside the ropes, so no walking through the middle. What annoyed me is that we weren't allowed to walk all the way around it, as the ropes ran into a highway. It was sunset shortly after the winter solstice, and I wanted to see how close the stones came to lining up with the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, while reading the comments on the article, I found this rather amazing link to a "street view" care of Google [goo.gl] that lets you walk right through there from the comfort of your own PC terminal.
Do I see the aligned object on the right days of the year?
Re:Simple: (Score:5, Informative)
If you want an even more amazing view of Stonehenge, here's a visiting tip that doesn't seem to be that well known - if you plan ahead and fill out this form: ...you can get inside the ropes and get within touching distance of the stones at sunrise. You get the place pretty much to yourself *and* the major road running right by the site is completely empty. It's a genuinely humbling experience and you can get views like this.
http://bit.ly/bYertb [bit.ly]
http://bit.ly/dxPWXE [bit.ly]
Yeah, go ahead and write me, English Heritage.
(although I still feel bad about the moment I found I was accidentally standing on a halfburied lintel.)
Re:Simple: (Score:5, Informative)
Or you could just drive past.
Without fail, every single foreigner I've ever asked about Stonehenge finds it to be extremely uninspiring and a wasted journey / stop. And £14.95 an adult... are ya kidding me? You can get entry to any number of places for that. Hell, Tintagel Castle of something is infinitely more useful, pretty and interesting (and far cheaper) and that's just a pile of crumbling rocks falling into the sea.
Apart from there being virtually nothing at Stonehenge but some generic worn rocks in a vague circle, if you DO get past the barriers, there's much better stone circles elsewhere that are free. The "mystery" of how "they" made it isn't really a mystery for anyone who dabbles in such archaeology, or even that surprising - unusual at best.
One American friend had an organised day trip to Stonehenge from London when they visited (all the British people are now in fits of laughter). How/why I have no idea, but they were rather disappointed to say the least.
It's nice to see once, the best view now completely ruined by silly fences and borders and being from several hundred yards away as you drive down the hill to the East of it. But that's precisely what you do - see it once. I don't know of a single person that's seen it and *deliberately* gone back to stop there again (rather than passing by) - maybe I just don't know enough hippies.
Considering it's on quite a major road that many thousands of people drive down every summer to get to Devon/Cornwall, and that it's only a few hundred yards from said road (on one of the most dangerous turnoffs in the world because everyone is goggling at the stones rather than driving and not noticing the *one* guy miles in front who's stopping to turn to actually go TO them), the number of people you ever see inside the barriers is pretty pitiful. Unless, of course, you're there on the solstice when you REALLY don't want to be using that road at all unless you fancy day-long queues and not being able to get within a mile of the damn thing.
Stonehenge really is the most over-hyped, unimpressive place in Britain that I know. Keep driving, get to Cornwall and go look at dozens of standing stone sites for free (or much cheaper under the National Trust) or, even better, go look at something vaguely interesting like Tintagel, St Michael's Mount, or something vaguely recognisable.
Re:Simple: (Score:5, Informative)
Or you could just drive past.
I had a chance to visit the UK a few years ago, and took the train out to Salisbury to see Stonehenge. I enjoyed it, since it is a famous landmark, but what blew me away that day was wandering the cathedral in Salisbury. The medieval clock on display, working since 1200 or whatever, was really cool, at least to me. And there was an original Magna Carta on display, one of the few (four?) surviving copies, fairly legible too. All in all I went out planning to see Stonehenge but wound up pleasantly surprised with unplanned discoveries at the nearby town.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it's an impressive cathedral, and the Magna Carta is definitely worth a look. Old Sarum, the original Salisbury, is an interesting place too. It's very close by.
Avebury (Score:5, Informative)
You, too! could build your very own Stonehenge!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. The tech is *so* simple that Wally Wallingford of Flint, Michigan is building his own Stonehenge [theforgott...nology.com] (more of a Concretehenge, really) almost single-handedly, just using wood forms, levers, and clever balancing to move these huge multi-ton blocks about.
A lot of things that people these days describe as "OMG how did they possibly do that it must be ALIENS!" are really only mysterious because people are shockingly ignorant of the basics of how the world works. Probably comes of sitting on their bums so much.
Cheers,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"try using photos of the Eiffel Tower for commercial gain and see where it gets you."
I don't think there's any problem making commercial gain from Eiffer Tower. It's the night lights what could get you in troubles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Step Five: Take it to the logical limit. They didn't make Stonehenge, but they can control the copyright, correct? So, following that logic, if I don't make a song, but I downloaded it and therefore now possess a copy of the song, do I now have say as to the copyright of the song? Because, as the copyright holder, I can't be sued for breaking copyright, right? 'I can't be breaking copyright if I have a copy!' should be a legal defense if this holds up.
Re:Simple: (Score:5, Insightful)
Step Three: Claim "Ownership" of aforementioned stuff.
While for RIAA has clear the legal bases of their claims (copyright law, in various incarnations), it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:
Head explodes!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Art, not History (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While for the RIAA has clear the legal bases of their claims
I think what you mean is that the RIAA has a clear legal basis for their actions. And, the answer to that is: not always. They've been caught more than once suing over material for which they do not have the rights. Whether that's due to Incompetence or sleaziness, I couldn't say. The point being that the RIAA is hardly an improvement over this English Heritage outfit.
Re:Simple: (Score:4, Insightful)
They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.
This is what is, frankly, nonsense.
There are only two reasons to forbid photography in a museum:
One is banning flash photography to stop damage to paintings. This is clearly a stupid rational for something outside, and I would assume almost all photographs of Stonehenge are taken without a flash anyway.
Two is if there are things still copyright. Which is an even stupider reason for this.
I went to the Museum of Modern Art , and could take non-flash photography of all works except, strangely, a single one, because it was on loan and still under copyright. (It was some sort of shark in a case.)
This group might have some legal basis for restricting photography, you can indeed stop people from taking pictures on your 'property', but at that point Stonehenge needs to be taken away from their management and given to someone else. They don't actually 'own' Stonehenge, they're just running the property on behave of the British government, and if they're going to act like this, they should be removed from that.
This is, incidentally, different than restricting someone from using it as a trademark, which the British government could do if they wanted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.
This is what is, frankly, nonsense.
There are only two reasons to forbid photography in a museum:
One is banning flash photography to stop damage to paintings. [...]
Two is if there are things still copyright. [...]
I can imagine another dummy reason a museum can invoke: "don't take photos, I don't want my security setting to be photographed; and good luck trying to avoid it, I took the pain of making it unavoidable".
But, somehow... I don't know why... I can imagine this being invokable for the Stonehenge... not by a rational person anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you get that list from "How to lose your public goodwill for dummies"?
I know RIAA et.al. did. :)
From the original email: (Score:3, Informative)
It appears that from this email even website advertising would be "violating their rights"
Greed vs Common Sense (Score:2)
Sadly another case of greed over-ruling common sense.
Re:Greed vs Common Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly another case of greed over-ruling common sense.
Blame the current government (or the previous government for spending all the money, if you prefer).
All NDPBs (non-departmental public bodies / quangos), as well as government departments, have been told to cut costs and find new ways to make money. The one I work for is trying to sell it's scientific data (yet it's also supposed to go on data.gov.uk and be available to the taxpayers who paid for it).
Anyone sufficiently annoyed with English Heritage should write to their MP. I imagine it will fix the issue very quickly.
Carhenge (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
does this qualify as a car analogy?
Re:Carhenge (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Carhenge (Score:4, Funny)
tourist 1: hmm, they must have been using this wheel to calculate the time of sunrise or something...
tourist 2: indeed, amazing technology they had. I wonder what these numbers show in front of the "main" seat. Must be some kind of a galactic compass!
tourist 1: woah...
Dear English Heritage, (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear English Heritage,
Go fuck yourselves.
Signed,
Everyone else
Re:Dear English Heritage, (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. My photos of Stonehenge are mine. I shot them, and my admission ticket had nothing on it restricting the terms of my photographing it.
These are my fucking property. I created them, I own the copyright, not this organization, and I'll sell them if I please.
Now, if they want to try to trademark Stonehenge, go right ahead, but I don't see it holding up.
Wrong jargon for Britain (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear English Heritage,
We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
Signed,
Everyone else
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ruining photography (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of crap has the potential to make photographer's lives really annoying. And this comes just as more and more people are active amateur photographers.
The lighting on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted? Museums claim rights over photographic reproductions of century-old paintings? Where do we draw the line?
On the one hand, we have the physical equivalent of contracts: agreements made as a requirement for entrance; this allows zoos, museums, etc. to restrict the use of commercial photography. But photos taken from public streets? From the air?
The fact that these institutions go after commercial users isn't much comfort; the line between non-commercial amateur and commercial-but-still-amateur photography. Have ads up on a blog? Submit your photo to a local art show? Sell your photo to a stock photo site? It's easy for an amateur to make a little cash from the best of their photos.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ruining photography (Score:5, Insightful)
As a theatrical lighting designer, I dislike people like you. I don't want to copy your design for your last play. Firstly, it doesn't match the play I'm working on (even if it's the same script). If i did use it, it would look like crap and I wouldn't be hired again. Are you afraid of me copying a specific thing you did with a light? Guess what, borrowing little bits from others is how you grow in the arts. It's not just about each little idea, it's also about how you combine them. Think collage. And if you create the iconic version that runs on broadway and that every director asks to be repeated, well fucking awesome. Also, no other lighting designer is ever going to have the same equipment or space again, so even if they do recreate your look, it's less like copying and more like making a crayon version of the Mona Lisa. An homage. So please, get over yourself. This isn't like downloading music, where instead of coming to see your play they're looking at pictures they pirated or they went out and created a perfect working replica. At worst, someone several years down the line will make they're lights look kinda like what they're (crappy) camera remembers them like, only with different equipment in a different space. And people will say "those lights don't work for this production" and they will be out of work. Also, you don't mention copywriting your programming. Which you can. Also you're instructions to the board op and SM. Which, again, are useless unless everything is a perfect match. Which it won't be. Sorry for being so ranty. But worrying about someone copying one of my lighting designs is like worrying about someone copying the way an actor acts. Yes, with enough work someone could do it...but only sorta, and it would v&e meaningless to someone watching, and anyone in the biz making hiring decisions is gonna call them out on it...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently this happened to Taipei 101 too. Its public relations section claims any advertisement using the building's iconic image need to pay a fee for it. Post card publisher and different real state agencies were sent legal notices in the past.
It's really simple, copyright expires. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I could understand if English Heritage wanted to instate a new policy that required permits for commercial photography. They really want to improve the tourist facilities at the site, and have had trouble getting the money to do so. I think they'd have a very hard time of it, since Stonehenge is clearly visible from public roads and the air. So unless they want to build a giant dome over it, they really couldn't control access.
But trying to retroactively apply that policy to photos taken before the polic
Re:Ruining photography (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it's already a big mess.
In France for example, you can take the picture of someone on the street, but you're not allowed to publish it. You need to have a signed waiver from the person, or the legal guardian. Even furniture and houses benefit from this.
What it basically means, is that I can't use the picture of a specific house to try and sell the house I'm currently building. It also means that I could get in trouble for putting a picture of myself on Flickr if there happens to be an identifiable stranger in the background. I also can't publish a picture of a (for the sake of example) chest-drawer in the middle of a public street, or sell it, or show it during an art expo and gain material benefits from it, unless the owner of the chest drawer signed a waiver.
However, I can take a picture of a bunch of people who are demonstrating (quite common for the past weeks in France), provided that I'm photographing "a group of people demonstrating", not "a person". Though, when you think about the 18+ megapixel cameras any sufficiently committed amateur photographer can get their hands on, I wonder where the line is drawn. Can I crop?
I'm quite an avid photographer; the UK/Australia/US rules on this were an absolute godsend (rough lines: don't breach the "expectation of privacy" and you're good to go). Well, that was in the days before Stonehenge was built.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure that your Stonehenge monument isn't in danger of being crushed by a dwarf. And consider turning your f-stop up to 11.
While we're making unenforcable claims... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any UK legal folk around? (Score:2)
This seems like an inconceivably broad interpretation of any copyright law I am familiar with, but IANAL so perhaps there are some legal loopholes in UK law that allow this?
I would have thought copyright of a photograph would rest with the photographer (unless it's one of those cases where a building's design is considered copyrighted, but surely Stonehenge is beyond any conceivable copyright claims from the creators...)
I suppose there might be some kind of restrictions due to tricks (nighttime Eiffel tower
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Any UK legal folk around? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not UK legal folk, but there is this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The EU actually has a non-idiotic /recommendation/ for this, it's just not binding, i.e. member states don't have to implement it. The EU recommendation is similar to the actual UK legislation that basically allows taking pictures of anything that's directly visible from a public location. I.e. buildings on a road, even sculptures. Now I don't know the status of Stonehenge, maybe it's not considered a public location for some reason?
But I doubt it is really covered by /copyright/ of all things, since it's n
Image rights and trademark (Score:5, Informative)
The Commision may exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.
Various case law in some jurisdictions (eg, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs Gentile Productions 1998 in the US) seem to allow companies to protect their building's images as trademarks even though the building is visible from public land. So I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss English Heritage's claim as "unthinkable and ridiculous". (Or at least, it might be "ridiculous" to us on Slashdot, but they might still win.) It'll be interesting to watch anyway.
Re:Image rights and trademark (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, why doesn't it make sense that they want to control the commercial exploitation of their properties? The British public pays to maintain these sites, and an awful lot of money at that, so why should some company be allowed to step in and enjoy the benefits of the public's investment? As long as they aren't charging then it seems English Heritage doesn't mind - seems fair.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, why doesn't it make sense that they want to control the commercial exploitation of their properties? The British public pays to maintain these sites, and an awful lot of money at that, so why should some company be allowed to step in and enjoy the benefits of the public's investment?
Because what's being "exploited" are photos, which are in no way, shape, or form their property.
I mean, I pay a fair bit to maintain my car as well, but that doesn't give me any control over the "exploitation" of third-party photos of it.
Re:Image rights and trademark (Score:4, Informative)
I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.
That's what you'll need to read Hansard [parliament.uk] for. Alas, it seems to be difficult to search, but I think this [parliament.uk] is relevant. Moreover, as in the US, UK courts most certainly do take into account what was said in the legislature during the legislative process when dealing with some law, though they prefer to use the letter of the law as stated and existing precedent in relation to any particular act.
As pointed out in the link, there may well be superior legislation that prevents English Heritage from successfully making the claim. I would expect the key issue to be whether the photographs in question are, in principle, commercial or private pictures, and not whether some company is making money off hosting them.
Re:Image rights and trademark (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you paid an entrance fee to visit this site, and you're also paying to maintain the site via taxes, so why should you pay even more? Will I now have to pay the government every time I take a picture of a road? I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer of course... 33(B).1 of the National Heritage Act 2002 is
The Commision may exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.
May I argue that, before exploiting any intellectual property, they need to prove that they are the owner of that property? Then, they need to prove that the said property pertains to "intellectual property"?
(I'd continue by arguing that it would be needed a proof they actually have/manifest even a rudimentary level of intellect to be allowed to have ownership over an "intellectual property", but this would be at the same level of craziness as the very concept of "intellectual property").
Re: (Score:2)
My interpretation would be that exploit in this context means something more akin to "manage".
Even so, to manage (or exploit) "any inttelectual property", shouldn't the said property exist in the first place?
In what misterious way has Stonehenge became subject of copyright law?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However.... exploiting any intellectual property says nothing about "making something intellectual property" that was not intellectual property before.
And doesn't say anything about giving the commission the exclusive right to exploit any intellectual property.
The most obvious definition of 'exploit intellectual property' is.... they can sell post cards with a picture of the historic place featured, even if someone else took the picture, and didn't give them permission.
It says nothing about "seizin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hall of Fame v. Gentile was vacated by the 6th and it went no further. It did not establish any case law regarding the trademark of a structure. If you are going to throw around examples, I recommend the 6th's White Tower v. White Castle (1937) and Ferrari v. Roberts (1991), Also, the SCOTUS opinion in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992). Finally, the Lanham Act of 1946 had a narrow scope protecting marks likely to cause confusion or deceive purchasers as to the source of goods or services. In 1967, the statute
Re: (Score:2)
The Stonehenge claim is more in line with European public law than Anglo-Saxon tradition (the irony is thick here).
Not quite as thick... Stonehenge predates the Angle and Saxon arrival in Britain too by a few thousand years!
Music piracy has taken enough money from bands.. (Score:2)
A disguised way to sue Microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
Need I say more?
Re: (Score:2)
OH THANKS!
Signed
Microsoft
Fortunately... (Score:2)
When will the copyright expire? (Score:2)
I thought copyright lasts some hundred years or so after death of last of creators, so Stonehenge's copyright should have expired about 4000 years ago. Which/whose intellectual property is being protected now? ...or is it just that Stonehenge is a modern-made ruse, and the copyright is still valid?
Not copyright - a special law applies (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't about copyright. If it were, these letters would have nothing to support them, since a) the copyright on Stonehenge has expired and b) the plain view doctrine (for at least some of the photos).
However, it turns out that there is a special law in Britain that grants English Heritage all rights to all intellectual property somehow derived from archaeological monuments (search for National Heritage Act 2002). Since the UK's constitution is a rather jumbled up and all in all pretty toothless mess, th
Re: (Score:2)
So, in Communist UK, the nationalization of goods has started from Intellectual Property?
Where's my cut? (Score:2)
A lot of my ancestors were from England. Don't I deserve a cut of England's national heritage?
Re: (Score:2)
Well pay some taxes in this country and we'll see .... we could do with the money
This is Spinal Tap (Score:3, Funny)
4500 years? (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
What you say !! (Score:2)
'prior art, schmior art'. (Score:2)
you argue prior art today, and win, some other bunch of lawyers will argue something else the other day, and go around your argument. if not, private interests will finance a new law, and will totally undo whatever defense you were using to defend the rational approach.
patent, copyright systems are intellectual feudalism. eventual
Sydney Opera House Too (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking as an ancient monument myself (Score:2)
Good Reply To The Letters..... (Score:5, Funny)
Meanwhile Ireland has announced ... (Score:2)
... that Irish Stew is property of Ireland Heritage. Any pictures of a bowl of Irish Stew belong to Ireland Heritage. People distributing recipes for Irish Stew are in violation. Private folks are allowed to make Irish Stew at home, provided that they pay the appropriate Irish Stew license fees to Irish Heritage.
A working group at Irish Heritage is now finalizing a similar policy for "The Humble Spud."
Disney will love the precedent (Score:2)
The photographer owns the copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
.. of any photo they take in the UK. So EH can bluster and threaten all they want , they won't get anywhere. Someone needs a good kick up the arse in their legal department.
Sure, I'll give you back your Stonehenge photos... (Score:4, Interesting)
But only if you trade them for all the images of myself captured by Birtish surveillance cameras. Photos or video of me belong to me, sorry.
what about parody photos? (Score:3, Funny)
wonder if they'll come after me for this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works/140536377/ [flickr.com]
yes, it was a slow day in the hardware lab and I felt inspired at the time. I know that if anyone will 'get' what those are, its the slash crowd.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think that, in this instance, as in all things, they would be True Neutral.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Druidism has just been recognized as a religion in the UK [bbc.co.uk], wouldn't they have some ground to claim "intellectual property" on Stonehenge?
Or maybe it will go the other way round and English Heritage will start taking all the money from collection boxes in St Pauls Cathedral, York Minster, etc - but once a year 'allow Christians "special access" for a religious ceremony.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like a scam to rip-off gullible tourists.
But are mummies, technically speaking, dead?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't see why English taxpayers should have to pay for the upkeep of Sonehenge and then let anyone else make money off the site.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)