There is some ethical validity to respecting Iranian copyright law whether or not an obligation exists. Iran's failure to participate in international treaties on the matter should not be a primary concern. Infringement of Iranian copyrights are still infringements even if US courts would not consider those laws. Copyright terms in Iran (life + 30) are still shorter than in most countries, so there would be no need to extend them beyond that time. I'm not aware of any Iranian copyright provision regarding the depiction of women, and you admit that you don't know about that either. That aspect seems like a red herring.
Ec
Fastfission wrote:
Well the English servers are in the USA, which means they are subject to US law, not Iranian law. If we *were* subject to Iranian law, I'm betting there are a number of other Iranian laws we are already breaking! I don't know the Iranian laws about depictions of women but I'm willing to bet they've got a few that we're well afoul of.
FF
On 8/8/05, Roozbeh Pournader roozbeh@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/6/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Why not make a special tag template for this? Something along the lines of:
"This image, produced by the current government of Iran, are believed to not fall under U.S. copyright laws as Iran is not a member of WIPO. Should this change, though, the usage of this image is still believed to fall under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law. Use in mediums other than on the servers of the English-language Wikipedia, hosted in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, may not be exempt from either of these requirements."
There are problems with that:
- I believe the Wikimedia Foundation would be breaking Iranian law by
distributing those material to Iran, that is, serving its pages to Iranian readers. If it wishes to use the material, it should block Iran from its readership. 2) It's not only the government, and other Iranians may wish to sue the Wikimedia Foundation.
I wasn't referring to a copyright provision, I was referring to their other well-known restrictive laws. I'm not sure I buy the "ethical validity" argument, in part because I'm not so sure I, in my heart of hearts, think that copyright is about ethics much these days (and suspect that Iran's lack of participation in foreign copyright agreements is done so more for their own benefit -- not having to pay foreign copyright holders -- than it does in inducing any loss-of-profit for the Iranian government or Iranian citizens).
But anyway -- my response was just meant to say, "Well, I don't think we're legally bound to follow Iranian laws on this or much anything else." Even if that's *true* (I'm the first to admit I'm not very well versed in international law), it doesn't *necessarily* imply any particular course of action. The censorship example was just to illustrate that if we tried to follow every country's individual content laws about everything, we'd have no encyclopedia.
FF
On 8/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is some ethical validity to respecting Iranian copyright law whether or not an obligation exists. Iran's failure to participate in international treaties on the matter should not be a primary concern. Infringement of Iranian copyrights are still infringements even if US courts would not consider those laws. Copyright terms in Iran (life + 30) are still shorter than in most countries, so there would be no need to extend them beyond that time. I'm not aware of any Iranian copyright provision regarding the depiction of women, and you admit that you don't know about that either. That aspect seems like a red herring.
Ec
Fastfission wrote:
Well the English servers are in the USA, which means they are subject to US law, not Iranian law. If we *were* subject to Iranian law, I'm betting there are a number of other Iranian laws we are already breaking! I don't know the Iranian laws about depictions of women but I'm willing to bet they've got a few that we're well afoul of.
FF
On 8/8/05, Roozbeh Pournader roozbeh@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/6/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Why not make a special tag template for this? Something along the lines
of:
"This image, produced by the current government of Iran, are believed to not fall under U.S. copyright laws as Iran is not a member of WIPO. Should this change, though, the usage of this image is still believed to fall under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law. Use in mediums other than on the servers of the English-language Wikipedia, hosted in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, may not be exempt from either of these requirements."
There are problems with that:
- I believe the Wikimedia Foundation would be breaking Iranian law by
distributing those material to Iran, that is, serving its pages to Iranian readers. If it wishes to use the material, it should block Iran from its readership. 2) It's not only the government, and other Iranians may wish to sue the Wikimedia Foundation.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/4/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't referring to a copyright provision, I was referring to their other well-known restrictive laws. I'm not sure I buy the "ethical validity" argument, in part because I'm not so sure I, in my heart of hearts, think that copyright is about ethics much these days (and suspect that Iran's lack of participation in foreign copyright agreements is done so more for their own benefit -- not having to pay foreign copyright holders -- than it does in inducing any loss-of-profit for the Iranian government or Iranian citizens).
But anyway -- my response was just meant to say, "Well, I don't think we're legally bound to follow Iranian laws on this or much anything else." Even if that's *true* (I'm the first to admit I'm not very well versed in international law), it doesn't *necessarily* imply any particular course of action. The censorship example was just to illustrate that if we tried to follow every country's individual content laws about everything, we'd have no encyclopedia.
This is something that has been thrashed out many times, including well before the advent of the Internet. Just because a copy of (say) The Washington Post might be sent to Iran doesn't mean that TWP has to follow Iranian laws. It's up to Iran to enforce their own laws in their own country and nobody is saying otherwise.
But just because we can legally steal images owned by Iranians doesn't mean we should. For one thing, they might change their copyright law. But to my mind it's just plain wrong, especially when we have so many other avenues available, such as fair use, to illustrate our encyclopaedia.
Funny that you'd invoke "fair use" as an adequate alternative, when in the eyes of many of the world's legal systems, U.S. standards for "fair use" would be considered "stealing" if done within their own borders... Of course, what is "legal" and what is "ethical" have long been separate notions. (And, of course, when "ethics" are invoked in most discussions of copyright law, it is usually as hubris rather than honest philosophical committment, but such is life). ;-)
FF
On 9/3/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't referring to a copyright provision, I was referring to their other well-known restrictive laws. I'm not sure I buy the "ethical validity" argument, in part because I'm not so sure I, in my heart of hearts, think that copyright is about ethics much these days (and suspect that Iran's lack of participation in foreign copyright agreements is done so more for their own benefit -- not having to pay foreign copyright holders -- than it does in inducing any loss-of-profit for the Iranian government or Iranian citizens).
But anyway -- my response was just meant to say, "Well, I don't think we're legally bound to follow Iranian laws on this or much anything else." Even if that's *true* (I'm the first to admit I'm not very well versed in international law), it doesn't *necessarily* imply any particular course of action. The censorship example was just to illustrate that if we tried to follow every country's individual content laws about everything, we'd have no encyclopedia.
This is something that has been thrashed out many times, including well before the advent of the Internet. Just because a copy of (say) The Washington Post might be sent to Iran doesn't mean that TWP has to follow Iranian laws. It's up to Iran to enforce their own laws in their own country and nobody is saying otherwise.
But just because we can legally steal images owned by Iranians doesn't mean we should. For one thing, they might change their copyright law. But to my mind it's just plain wrong, especially when we have so many other avenues available, such as fair use, to illustrate our encyclopaedia.
-- Peter in Canberra
If the thread was about copyright then dragging in other matters that are unrelated can only create confusion. I agree that there are many aspects of Iranian law where human rights are not properly respected, but that does not justify our ignoring whatever other rights Iran may have allowed to its citizens. If Iran already gives its citizens copyright protections that are substantially less than what is available in most other countries, how can one justify reducing those protections even further? Speculating about Iranian motives for not participating in international agreements is not helpful; not paying foreign copyright holders is indeed a consequence, but that does not make it a motive.
Of course, much of copyright law is not about ethics. The Disney Corporation has done much to establish that fact. Law and ethics frequently diverge. Ethics underlie the spirit of law, and the ethical person acts out of a conviction that what he is doing is right, and not because he is so obliged by the word of written laws. It's true to say that we are not bound to follow Iranian laws, but that does not prevent us from respecting them out of our own sense of fairness.
Ec
Fastfission wrote:
I wasn't referring to a copyright provision, I was referring to their other well-known restrictive laws. I'm not sure I buy the "ethical validity" argument, in part because I'm not so sure I, in my heart of hearts, think that copyright is about ethics much these days (and suspect that Iran's lack of participation in foreign copyright agreements is done so more for their own benefit -- not having to pay foreign copyright holders -- than it does in inducing any loss-of-profit for the Iranian government or Iranian citizens).
But anyway -- my response was just meant to say, "Well, I don't think we're legally bound to follow Iranian laws on this or much anything else." Even if that's *true* (I'm the first to admit I'm not very well versed in international law), it doesn't *necessarily* imply any particular course of action. The censorship example was just to illustrate that if we tried to follow every country's individual content laws about everything, we'd have no encyclopedia.
FF
On 8/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is some ethical validity to respecting Iranian copyright law whether or not an obligation exists. Iran's failure to participate in international treaties on the matter should not be a primary concern. Infringement of Iranian copyrights are still infringements even if US courts would not consider those laws. Copyright terms in Iran (life + 30) are still shorter than in most countries, so there would be no need to extend them beyond that time. I'm not aware of any Iranian copyright provision regarding the depiction of women, and you admit that you don't know about that either. That aspect seems like a red herring.