[WikiEN-l] Correspondence relating to the copyright status of an image

[Ray Saintonge]

Nathaniel Krause wrote:

> Below is the response I received from the proprietor of 
> http://4dw.net/royalark after I e-mailed him to ask for copyright 
> information on a picture that appeared on his website. The image in 
> question  (http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Arabia/hijaz-Ali.gif) is a 
> photograph of [[Ali bin Hussein]], who died in 1935, and thus I 
> thought there was a good chance the image might be in the public 
> domain by now, especially since it might well have been taken in the 
> Middle East before the currently-existing states there were even 
> established.

(rant deleted)

> From:    "Christopher J Buyers"
> To:    "Nathaniel Krause"
> Subject:    Re: hijaz-Ali.gif
> Date:    Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:38:59 +0100
>
> Piss-off.
>
> You and your kind are nothing more than a bunch of thieves and 
> plagiarisers. I am in no mood to help you or co-operate with you one 
> bit. I shall of course, ensure the registration of your name for 
> future reference by others.
>
> Thankfully, I see that the activities of the wikipedia website has not 
> escaped the notice of others who are in a position to take the 
> appropriate steps in the near future.
> ----
> I'm sending this to the list, first, because I wanted to keep my word 
> and remind my fellow Wikipedians not to blatantly violate somebody's 
> copyright. Second, because I wanted to warn you that Mr. Buyers' 
> second e-mail appears to let the cat out of the bag regarding the 
> shadowy conspiracy that may be plotting against Wikipedia as even as 
> you read this. Sadly, we have not escaped their notice. In case you 
> see somebody coming toward you, especially in the near future, who 
> looks like he may be in a position to take appropriate steps, be extra 
> careful.
>
> Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This 
> website guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own 
> the copyright to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who 
> does. He just warns me not to use it without elaboration. Considering 
> his attitude, I'm not sure I'd really believe him if he did claim to 
> own it. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable just assuming that it's 
> public domain -- even if it doesn't belong to Christopher J Buyers, 
> there might be somebody else out there who still has rights to it. 
> [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] seems to imply that I should tag it {{fairold}} 
> and go ahead and use it, and it certainly appears to count as "Unique 
> historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means". However, 
> since this website guy is already upset with us, I thought it would 
> advisable to exercise additional scrutiny and get more opinions. 

Mr. Buyers comments are not consistent with those of a person who is 
knowledgeable of what he speaks.

The following extracts from Saudi law 
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/saudiarabia/saudiarabia.html 
may be of some help.

    Article 12. Any person who takes a photograph may not publish, show
    or distribute the original or copies of the photograph without the
    authorization of the persons depicted in the photograph. This
    provision shall not be of application if the photograph is published
    in relation to public events or if it concerns persons with official
    status or persons who enjoy public notoriety or if the public
    authorities authorize its publication in the general interest. The
    person depicted in the photograph may authorize its publication,
    even without the consent of the person who has taken the photograph,
    save for agreement to the contrary, in newspapers, periodicals and
    other such publications.

    Article 24. (1) The author's rights in his work shall be protected
    for his lifetime and for 50 years after his death.
    (2) In the case of sound, audiovisual or photographic works, of
    works of applied art (handicraft or industrial) or of anonymously
    published works, the author's rights shall be protected for 25 years
    as from the date of publication of the work. In such cases, the term
    of protection shall be computed as from the date of first
    publication of the work irrespective of any new publication.


Since Buyers does not appear to give any credit for the photo, it 
appears to be anonymous in the absence of any other evidence.  Saudi law 
should prevail for this.  (Iraqi law is another possibility since 
Hussein died in exile in Baghdad.)  The picture does not show someone 
ready for his death bed, and could very well have been taken many years 
before his February death.  The picture probably went into the public 
domain well before 1960.  Thus public domain is more than an assumption.

On the Royal Ark page in question I counted 18 claims to copyright.  
Copyright is not strenghthened by repetition.  He should be advised that 
US law allows for a fine of up to $2,500 for making illegal claims of 
copyright.  In this case I think that our use of the picture is 
perfectly legal; if he wants the picture removed let him issue a formal 
take down order.

That's all fine in relation to this specific case, but based on his tone 
I think that a confrontation somewhere with someone is just around the 
corner no matter what we do, and no matter how right we are. It just 
goes along with being big, and has nothing to do with any kind of 
cospiracy.  One of Wikipedia's effects has been to diminish the value of 
sites like Buyers'.  They forget that the facts that they have put 
together are not copyrightable.  At the same time the copyrightable 
elements of their sites are mostly of no interest to us.  What was a lot 
of work to them comes easily for us with our large human resources even 
though no money has been involved.  There is nothing illegal to what we 
have done, but there is nevertheless an effect.

Ec