More on Egypt’s Bizarre Copyright Scheme
Ever since I read Zahi Hawass’ announcement that Egypt is planning to copyright the pyramids and other antiquities. I’ve been trying to find out more. Unfortunately, thus far I haven’t been able to track down an official announcement from Zahi Hawass or the Egyptian government.
When I first read about this scheme I thought that it sucked and was bizarre; I still do. In fact, the more I read in the press, the more problems I see. And at the same time, there are just so many questions about it that are left unanswered.
One of the first questions that I have is who really stands to gain in such a scheme? According to all the news reports, the money raised from the royalty payments from around world would go to pay for the upkeep of ancient sites in Egypt. However, for this scheme to work a system needs to be in place that includes a sophisticated monitoring and compliance network, both digital and human based. I doubt if Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities has those or can afford that type of investment. If they do, it would be better spent on maintaining and promoting the ancient sites and antiquities in Egypt. So back to the question on who gains. For me the simple answer is whoever wins the contract to enforce such a scheme, gains. I’m thinking of one of the big photo/art licensing companies…
Hawass has said that this new scheme would apply to full-scale, precise copies of any museum objects or “commercial use” of ancient monuments, including the pyramids or the sphinx. He has also said that this would apply even if it is for private use. How royalty enforcement of private use artificats and art would happen is beyond me.
However, Hawass has said that he doesn’t regard the Luxor hotel as a copy of an Egyptian pyramid, which by the way, the Egyptian media apparently has been complaining about. And he has also mentioned that the law would not prevent artists from drawing images of the monuments or historic sites, as long as the images were not exact copies.
This is all mind boggling to me and I still have lots of questions. Please note though that I do indeed believe in having intellectual copyright laws; just as long as they’re sane.
A few more questions/thoughts about the Egyptian Copyright Scheme:
- If an author publishes a book, and includes photos of the pyramids, or any of the other artifacts or historical sites, would these be part of the proposed law? And if so, how would this affect the thousands of books, magazines and papers that have been previously published?
- Apparently the law would not prevent artists from drawing images of the monuments or historic sites, as long as the images were not exact copies. Does this apply to previous paintings, such as the ones that Napoleon commissioned during his expedition to Egypt?
- What if a researcher, author, artist, writer, or blogger took a photograph at an Egyptian exhibit at some museum, would this apply to them?
- Speaking of photographs; how does this apply to photos that have already been licensed through an image collection service?
- Speaking of museums…Are they required to pay royalties for the artifacts that they have on display or in storage?
- What about the films and TV shows or documentaries that have been produced? How does this new scheme affect them? Would ‘Death on the Nile’ become so prohibitive to license that it couldn’t be released anymore?
In related news, the CBC reports that the World Intellectual Property Organization and UNESCO are seeking support for international laws that would allow countries to protect copyright on their cultural monuments and folk icons.
Zahi Hawass’ proposed copyright scheme for Egyptian antiquities, as well as the World Intellectual Property Organization and UNESCO’s copyright ideas would open a big messy can of worms and change the world of research and entertainment for the worse.
Related News Links:
- Guardian: Egypt to copyright the pyramids and antiquities
- BBC: Egypt ‘to copyright antiquities’
