steve v wrote:
The below is at [[Image_talk:2UK_soldiers2.jpg]]. Im curious what the "public" thinks of the issue.
I have two questions on the public domain status of this image. On what basis is this said to be the work of an Iraqi government employee- it explicitly says "AFP" on the bottom right. Also, is the work of Iraqi government employees actually public domain- this is the situation with the U.S. government, but in most countries it is not.--Pharos 23:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
One needs to approach such issues in the spirit of common sense. 1. I don't think that AFP should be recognized as a copyright holder, and that French law should be thus brought into the back door. I think that it is safe to say that the got the picture from someon else who would have a stronger claims to copyright. No evidence has been provided that this other person would have somehow transferred those rights to AFP.
2. Iraq did have a copyright law before it was invaded and occupied. That law was based on the old Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), and had never been updated to conform with the Berne Convention.
3. The US occupation forces purported to amend Iraqi copyright law to conform to the Berne Convention standards. It is not unusual for an occupying power to leave the laws of a hated regime in place when there is no need to change the specific law in question. It is also unclear whether the purported changes would apply to all of Iraq or only those parts of Iraq under US rather than other foreign occupation. Basra is under British occupation, and the US change should not apply there.
4. Inasmuch as the pre-existing Iraqi protection is weaker than the Berne Convention protection it should continue to be recognized, and only those parts of the changes which extend that law should be brought into question.
5. The policy of putting all government publications into the public domain is unique to the United States. For that to be applied in an occupied country the least that one would expect is that the US edict would include a specific mention of that change. Failing this, any question of whether it had the right to make the change becomes moot.
6. Although the presence of the servers in the United States implies that US copyright law will be prima facie applicable, it does not imply that it is the only applicable law. Some respect needs to be shown for the laws of other countries whether or not they have copyright relations with the United States.
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.
Ec