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