--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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(a)telus.net> wrote:
--- Ray
Saintonge <saintonge(a)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