Egypt to Copyright Pyramids and Sphynx

empaler writes "We all know the usual pro-copyright arguments. Most of them hinge on the fact that the individual or company that has a copyright needs an incentive to make something that is copyrightable, and therefore ensure a revenue stream in a period after the copyright has been granted. In a never-surpassed move, Egypt is working on legislation to extend copyright well above 3000 years — they are going to start claiming royalties for using likenesses of the Sphynx and the Pyramids. It is still unclear whether the original intent of the Pyramids included 'making sure them bastards pay for a plastic copy in 3000 years' alongside 'securing a pathway to the heavens for the God King.' Speaking as a Greenlandic national, I want dibs on ice cubes." It sounds straight out of The Onion, but instead you can read another story on the BBC.

Wait, wait;

[NovaX81]

Isn't copyrighting a geometrical figure [wikipedia.org] about the same as copyrighting a number? How exactly do they plan to go about doing this?

Wow, impressive.

[bigstrat2003]

"Zahi Hawass, who chairs Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, told the BBC the law would apply in all countries."

That's pretty astounding arrogance right there. Since when do one country's laws apply anywhere outside their borders? Not to mention that they have no right to try to "copyright" stuff that was made 3000 years ago, by people long-since dead.

Tit for tat

[SamP2]

Egypt doesn't have the power to enforce copyright laws in other countries, but since international copyright is enforced via international treaties, it can take the following stance: "Respect our terms of copyright or we won't respect yours".

For example, the U.S. might reject Egypt's indefinite copyright claim, but Egypt can in retaliation refuse to recognize or enforce US copyright on its territory, essentially legitimazing piracy of any US copyrighted property (including, of course, software).

Re:Wow, impressive.

[rolfwind]

That's pretty astounding arrogance right there. Since when do one country's laws apply anywhere outside their borders?

They learned from America, whose government has pretty much the same attitude in many areas.

Not to mention that they have no right to try to "copyright" stuff that was made 3000 years ago, by people long-since dead.

Ask Disney about the Grimm Brothers.

Re:Does this mean...

[Merls the Sneaky]

No the inca's have prior art.

Re:They can choose to copyright...

[Zeinfeld]

How will you ignore it? Thanks to the US Government, they must take Egypt's copyright claims seriously if they demand that other countries take ours seriously (and even let us infiltrate their citizen's lives CIA-style).

Actually the copyright laws are regulated by international treaty and this particular claim is not supported by the treaty. So the reverse is true, Egypt has zero chance of applying this particular law outside its own borders.

But thats probably not what they are after. After some haggling the owners of the Luxor will come up with some form of face saving deal that throws a little money towards preserving the originals and in return the Egyptian government will loan them some stuff.

Re:Firehose is weird

[1u3hr]

Perhaps I'm really bad at writing summaries, but I posted this same story on Firehose almost an hour before this one even came up.

But you probably spelled "sphinx" correctly. It was the extra creativity of fucking it up to "sphynx" that got this one noticed. Remember, it's not accuracy that gets you on Slashdot, it's the ability to distort and misinterpret a story so it will generate the most page views that counts.

Re:Just like any other desperate move

[CodeBuster]

Fewer and fewer people go to Egypt to see the pyramids

There is a reason for that and it has nothing to do with copyright or newer monumental construction projects in neighboring Arab countries and that is the image that westerners in general and Americans in particular have about Arab countries from what they see in the terrorist beheading videos, the stonnings of women in the streets, and the unruley mobs chanting "death to America". Tourists are scared to death of visiting Arab countries and they should be. If the Eygptians want to attract more tourists to their country then they have to do something about the terrorist image that is being solidified in the west. Does anyone else remember the episode of 30 Days [wikipedia.org] where Morgan Spurlock asks people what is the first word that comes into their mind when he says the word "muslim"? The fact that Ayman Al-Zawahiri (aka the Eygtpian doctor and number 2 man of Osama) gets mentioned just about every time Al Qaeda gets mentioned in the news doesn't help. The Eygptians, the Saudis, the Jordanians and other Arab countries need to do more publically to counteract the negative PR moves being made by the terrorists or all but the most adventurous tourists might stay away permanently.

There is one thing worse than this

[davmoo]

And that's the sad fact that out of 112 comments that have appeared up to the time I write this one, I only saw 1 that looks like the author RTFA first.

The proposed law only covers exact replicas of Egyptian monuments, it does not cover the general geographic shape of a sphinx or a pyramid. It also only covers commercial use. If I make a Play-Doh replica and use it as a candle holder on my own bookcase, that isn't commercial use. And finally, the monies generated will go for the preservation of those monuments.

"Copyright" is probably the wrong term for them to use. "Licensing" would have been more correct. But other than that, I fail to see what's wrong here. If you are making money by creating an exact replica of an Egyptian monument and using it commercially, I don't see anything at all wrong with you also being expected to help preserve that monument.

I guess none of you in the US are aware of facts like if I photograph your house and use that photo commercially, in most situations (advertising would be a prime example) I have to have your permission to do it, and you can charge me money for it. And it doesn't matter if your house is one day old or one thousand years old.

Noah's Ark Found! Noah's Ark!

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, all the regular news staff are on leave and the editors are pulling stories out of their bottom drawers to fill newsprint. We used to call it 'cucumber time' - don't know why, but it does feel like a good description for this time of year.

Re:Just like any other desperate move

[hobo sapiens]

"cheap foreign knockoff souvenirs"
Ironic thing is the souvenirs probably cost more than the original to build. Sweatshops may be cheap, but good ole fashioned slave labor wins hands down.

Hey, it's all a big joke!

Re:Take this Egypt!

[gd2shoe]

Yeah, and so were some of the early pyramids, as I recall.

Give the guy a break.

External copyright might not be the goal

[TiggertheMad]

It is entirely possible that they don't give a mummified rat's ass about preserving rightst for the pyramids outside Egypt. This might be just another way to make sure anyone cashing in on the pyramids to sell tinkets and junk to tourists gives a cut to the government.

Or, perhaps this is going to be used like a submarine patent: They let people using the images just slide by until they want to cash in or cause someone grief. I somehow imagine that the money that Egypt makes off ouf tourisim is probably a lot greater than the money that say, the Luxor makes off of being shaped like a pyramid.

Im guessing that this is a strategic move.

Re:constitutional application in US?

[Artifakt]

That's pretty much in line with my take on the constitutional issue involved. Since without a man-made law on copyright, the original right was part of natural law, that right expired naturally the instant a person died (or became physically unable to copy). For a limited time therefore had to mean for less time than the natural law otherwise allowed, that is a natural lifetime. That's what Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin most probably meant by limited.

The U. S. Supreme Court disagrees with this theory totally, of course. One of the implications of this disagreement is that, if the government ever repeals its copyright laws, we, 'the people', still don't regain a natural right to copy but neither do the authors automatically regain a right to any other methods to control copying!. If the natural right never existed, it can't revert. If states don't get any control, it can't be accomplished by contract either. So who could control copying if the federal government decided not to manage copyrights? Prior decisions say it's not a right of the states, so if it can't revert to individuals either, no copyright control at all can exist except as the fed arbitrarily chooses.
      The federal government now maintains that it created the right to copy ex nihilo (out of nothing at all), so it, not us, and not the artists, really owns all possible forms of control over that right. In other words, if the government ever repealed the existing copyright laws and then simply claimed, without even passing a new law, that all author's royalties were now property of the government, that would not be, constitutionally speaking, a taking without compensation. If SCOTUS sticks with its last few precedents, it would have to refuse to even hear a claim that the government simply taking an author's royalties was unconstitutional.
      So all you authors who think the government has stood up for your rights, do you really trust them never to shorten the period again and claim the extra royalties revert to the federal coffers? Maybe shorten it again and again? They rewrote the law, so you don't have a right, you have a gift, and the law allows take-backs.

Re:Wow, impressive.

[Kaenneth]

......That's pretty astounding arrogance right there. Since when do one country's laws apply anywhere outside their borders? ...They learned from America, whose government has pretty much the same attitude in many areas.

Unless the US Government dosn't want it to, such as in Gitmo, where our troops are enforcing the opposite of our national laws...

Do as I say, not as I do.

Re:Eh?

[Hognoxious]

Of course it wouldn't be expired in Egypt if this law passes.

Instead of life of the author plus 50 years, are they making it afterlife + 50?

Re:They can choose to copyright...

[Davey McDave]

This isn't entirely stupid. First off, lots of people have already mentioned that it won't apply outside of Egypt, and secondly, it obviously isn't for the geometrical structure, just the obvious purpose of selling something that is a likeness of the ancient monument. Also, this is not an unusual thing to do. The illuminations on the Eiffel tower are copyrighted, it's illegal to take a picture of them and sell it, publish it, et cetera, without permission (of the company who put them up, I think, not sure though).

Personally I'm worried this will give the government a monopoly over one of the most lucrative parts of the economy. A lot of people make their living by selling merchandise, and if the government decide to charge a significant royalty for this stuff (which they know they can get away with) it could destroy a lot of livelihoods. Giza is a pretty grim place as it is.

I'm typing this from Cairo, if you were wondering.

Re:Just like any other desperate move

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

None of which bothers me in the slightest - after all we lived with the IRA for thirty years in the UK. Egypt and the Middle East are perfectly safe and the media frenzy about the nasty terrorists is just that - on the ground by and large the people don't want to know where you are from. They want your money and will have it off any Western tourists by selling tat at overinflated prices, but that's true of any tourist place of course. Now the US - fingerprints on entry? Geez, I've not arrived and I'm considered a criminal. The protection offered citizens is not extended to guests, rude and overbearing officials, detention without trial, no thanks. I've been to both and the Middle East wins on general perceived safety.

Then it should be done with trademarks

[tepples]

The EU is big on protecting regional designations. Copyright is obviously the wrong approach

Especially given that regional designator law is more like trademark law. In this case, Egypt could get a trademark on GIZA [wikipedia.org] for pyramid reproductions in each major developed market. This confusion between trademarks and copyrights among laypeople is one of the reasons why Mr. Stallman don't like the use of "intellectual property" in the mass media.

Re:There is one thing worse than this

[davmoo]

Oh, I realized after I hit "submit" that I should have been more clear on one point. If you're taking a wide shot of a bunch of buildings and not singling out any one facility, you'd be okay without a release. And this is probably why Google would be okay doing it. But what I'm talking about above is if you make a specific building easily identifiable and the obvious focal point of your advertising photo.