Dude, no one knows, that is kinda the whole problem of 2257. In the past 6 years it has become so broad that any corner cases can only be decided in court. And that is why Google Yahoo and all those other big internet companies are ignoring those laws. So they can get sued and a judge will tell them the scope of the law.
Larry Sanger writes: Jimmy Wales recently took a bold position against pornography on Wikimedia Commons: "Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support." Wales also restarted the "Commons:Sexual content" policy page. His basic complaint is that Wikimedia Commons hosts too much unnecessary porn, and he wants to get rid of it. He underscored his seriousness this way, stating that we can expect "a strong statement" from the WMF soon: "if the Wikimedia Foundation wants to declare that it is ok for Commons to be a porn host, they can do that, and I'll not be able to continue. That isn't going to happen, though, and in fact you should expect a strong statement from the Board and/or Sue in the next few days." This comes about a month after I originally posted my report about depictions-of-child-sexual-molestation on Wikimedia Foundation servers to the FBI, which Slashdot duly ripped to shreds (as only Slashdot can), and a little over a week after the FoxNews.com story. The latter coverage reported that one of my senators, and my representative to Congress, had forwarded the matter to the FBI's Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs. I'm happy to be able to congratulate Jimmy Wales for his good judgment on this, and I look forward to the larger Wikimedia community approaching these issues with a little more sanity. Link to Original Source
supersloshy writes Today Mozilla released Thunderbird 3.
Many new features are available, including Tabs and enhanced search features, a message archive for emails you don't want to delete but still want to keep, Firefox 3's improved Add-ons Manager, Personas support, and many other improvements. Download here."
BuR4N writes: "Spotify ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify ) the Swedish streaming music service have secured funding ($50 million) for expanding in the US. Spotify aims to give iTunes a run for the money. Having a cost free (ad sponsored) account alternative (not for the iPhone version) and a lightweight streaming application with a fantastic music choice, it certainly going to be interesting to see if it can shake up the music market in the US." Link to Original Source
Yeah, in this I agree with BasilBrush somewhat earlier in the comments thread.
"The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act. It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy."
You misinterpreted the poll. The poll was only to confirm if the community would follow the position of the WMF, or stand by it's previous guidelines under which these images would not have been allowed because they were from the UK. So the position of the WMF was not based on the outcome of the poll, it predated the poll.
UKNeedsAPirateParty writes: The National Portrait Gallery, London has sent one of the users of Wikimedia Commons, who had uploaded a bunch of NPG website images to the Commons website a legal threat, after Wikimedia refused to remove the images of many Public Domain portraits from their website. Since NPG apparently couldn't get their way with Wikimedia, they now seem to have decided to go after an individual. Wikimedia seems to assert that due to Bridgeman v. Corel, the copyright claim over these photographs is weak at best due to lack of originality. NPG on the other hand claims that this US court decision is not relevant in the UK and also claims their database rights. This practice of claiming (copy)rights on anything and everything build around works that themselves are in the Public Domain, has been described as copyfraud, but defended by others as required to maintain the financial health of museums.