 | Military history Start‑class  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What does "ERA" mean in this context?
What does "ERA" mean in this context? The current list on the disambiguation page do not seem to apply. RedWolf 02:11, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
acronymfinder.com seems to have the best guess of "Extended Range Ammunition" or "Extended Range Artillery". ugen64 02:13, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
Often also known as 'Base Bleed' Ammunition. Rob cowie 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The correct name for the program was 'ERA/ERO', meaning Extended Range Ammunition/Extended Rage Ordnance Nfe 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In service with the Yanks?
Isn't this weapon in service with the Yanks as propelled weapons were built in 2005 at BAE Telford for the US Army. King Konger
- It's not in US service Chwyatt 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature
It's missing. AS90 has to have a FV number, and land-service numbers for the complete equipment (eg something around L125) and ordnance (eg something around L27).
There's also the matter of the auxiliary engine. Nfe 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why delete picture?
It is of an AS-90 and comes from the UK MoD Defence Image Library and hence is in the public domain. What's wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfe (talk • contribs)
- The problem is that the image is copyrighted and using it here infringes that copyright. Because the copyright is owned by a department of the British government does not mean that it is public domain, in fact as I remember it means that it is copyrighted for 50 more years. It is the US government that releases all their images into the public domain - this does not apply to most other countries.--Konstable 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a bit more study on intellectual property law, notably that of UK and what copyright actually means. The purpose of copyright is to give the owner control over their property, these property rights can be transferred in their entirety or in part. MoD's terms and conditions for use of their images are at http://www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk/fotoweb/terms.fwx
This explicitly grants the right of non-commercial use. This means that if you use an image in something you produce for sale then you must pay a licence fee. However, if you are not using it to turn a buck then you can use it free of charge. Wikipedia is not a commercial operation (unless someone's being very naughty and telling porkies).
Every work has copyright attached to it. Copyright means the copyright owner has can grant whatever rights they choose to other parties. For example my words here are copyright to me but I have granted free publication rights to Wikipedia. However, if Wikipedia decided to become a commercial operation then I would revoke my waivure and take approprate legal action if Wikipedia did not remove my work (or paid me lots). MoD waives their copyright so long as someone else doesn't try and make a buck from it, then they take the entirely reasonable view that the UK taxpayer should get a fraction of this buck. A commercial purpose does of course include such things as BAE, the producer of AS-90, using MoD's image in their promotional material (although I suspect BAE pay a lump sum and can use whatever they want).
If Wikipedia wanted to be doubly sure then they could approach MoD for confirmation that publication on Wikipedia does not constitute a commercial purpose. If MoD states that they consider Wikepdia to be commercial then the options are to either remove all MoD copyright images or argue the toss in court. Has Wikipedia approached MoD for confirmation and have they said Wikipedia is commercial?
The reality is that MoD publishes their images so that they get publicity, that's what they want. They just object to people making money out of their work and not giving them a share.