--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't know whether this is better characterized as irrational or incoherent. There is no suggestion that President Hussein was the personal copyright holder for the photograph. Your ramblings have nothing to do with copyright. It doesn't seem right to want to punish all the citixens of a country just because you don't like its former president.
Well, whats not to like? Its odd that you raise the issue of "punishment" when I was simply alluding to a major discrepancy in your claimed notion of what Iraqi law actually is.
According to the current Coalition-instituted "Iraqi law," Coalition soldiers can shoot whomever they please and by law must be released from custody. An "irrational" argument would be to claim (as you do) that a military occupied country that has essentially instituted extremely low value thresholds for the protection of its own people, should somehow be regarded for its IP "rights." *That* seems rather irrational to me. In a case where no doubt the photographer might want to remain anonymous, and yet have their photograph published anyway (presumably just to 'get the word out').
If we really wanted to be nutty about IP law we could have taken down all the Abu Ghraib photos, as they were put up only on a prima fascia claim of public domain -- which assumed that the models/photographer's claim of "official duties" would stand in court. AIUI, according to military law rulings, those soldiers were not performing "official" duties. :) Would we need to go visit the photographers in prison to inquire if they want to release them under PD-GNU-CC?
SV "Do you have a model release for that photo?"
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:> 7. If pre-occupation Iraqi law would provide
protection for this photograph, it should be recognized for a period
of
at least 25 years after the date of first publication. There is
ample
time before we need to determine whether that period of time should be longer.
steve v wrote: Really? This is interesting, because Saddam law
might
have ruled it illegal to drive tanks over his
statues,
and take pictures of him in his underwear. Current "law" in Iraq doesnt seem to hold those "rights" inviolate. Theres a similar issue with Nazi-era photographs, etc. Does Germany claim Deutchland™
for
anything Fuhrer™?
I don't know whether this is better characterized as irrational or incoherent. There is no suggestion that President Hussein was the personal copyright holder for the photograph. Your ramblings have nothing to do with copyright. It doesn't seem right to want to punish all the citixens of a country just because you don't like its former president.
Ec
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com