Argentina Plans To Increase Copyright In Photos From 20 Years To Life Plus 70 Years, Devastating Wikipedia
from the cultural-memory-loss dept
As Techdirt has pointed out, copyright extensions are bad enough, but retroactive ones are even worse, since the creation of the work has already occurred, so providing additional incentives makes no sense, even accepting the dubious idea that artists think about copyright terms before setting to work. Moreover, copyright extensions are a real kind of copyright theft — specifically, stealing from the public domain. If you think that is just rhetoric, it’s worth looking at what is happening in Argentina.
As a post on the Wikimedia Argentina blog explains (original in Spanish), a proposed law would extend the copyright in photos from 25 years after an image was taken (or 20 years from first publication) to life plus 70 years — a vast extension that would mean that most photos taken in the 20th century would still be in copyright. That’s a big problem for Wikipedia in Argentina, since it is using photographs that have passed into the public domain under existing legislation. If the new law is passed in its current form, large numbers of photos would have to be removed:
Wikipedia would have to erase nearly all the photos of twentieth century history: the mere exposure without consent of the new rightsholders would be a crime. Not only Wikipedia: even the General Archive of the [Argentinian] Nation would become illegal and 40 million Argentines would be left without access to their historical memory.
It’s a great but sad example of how copyright can destroy culture on a massive scale. Let’s hope that law doesn’t pass.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Filed Under: argentina, copyright, copyright term, public domain
Companies: wikipedia
Comments on “Argentina Plans To Increase Copyright In Photos From 20 Years To Life Plus 70 Years, Devastating Wikipedia”
That sounds familiar
Life plus 70 years, where have I seen that before? Ah yes, that would be the copyright duration in several other countries, leaving me wondering if this is yet another example of a country trying to slip in changes to the law prior to a ‘trade’ agreement being passed, so they can lie and claim that the agreement had nothing to do with the law changing.
Well, either that or a few palms were greased, some not insignificant amounts of ‘donations’ changed hands, and a few politicians are pushing the law for the ones who bought them.
Simple. Any servers that are in Argentina, move the servers out of the country. That would work, wouldn’t it?
Re: Re:
Or just don’t host the images on a server that is in Argentina.
Re: Re: Re:
looking into the future….
companies will cherry-pick which countries gets to host their content
as systems detect that users are in the country, the data will magically shift to a different country where the laws are favorable
that way, they can protect our privacy AND provide a useful service.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It stands to make any country willing to protect it a LOT of money… but you see they are already in on this.
Why do you think they want a global trade agreement with EVERYONE? So they can stop it.
You must first gain a monopoly on a market in order to effectively control it! All of the secret agreements they are trying to put in place are to acquire this monopoly so they can control things.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are already companies trying to host content from low orbit space where none of this currently matters.
So Wiki needs to block Argentinians from using it, yes?
Re: Re:
They don’t need to go that far, they’d probably be okay just blocking any and all pictures from showing up for anyone connecting from Argentina.
And it’s not like pictures are important or effective ways to convey information, so hardly anything of import would be lost. /s
Hmmmm - wouldn't extension only apply to "new" pictures?
Not sure about Argentinian law, but in the US, if the work was already public domain when the law passed, it would not be “removed” from public domain. The new law would only apply to any “new” photos.
Re: Hmmmm - wouldn't extension only apply to "new" pictures?
Tell that to Mickey Mouse in USA.
Re: Hmmmm - wouldn't extension only apply to "new" pictures?
in the US, if the work was already public domain when the law passed, it would not be “removed” from public domain. The new law would only apply to any “new” photos.
What makes you think that?
In Golan v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that it is not unconstitutional for Congress to remove works from the public domain by granting their authors copyrights long after their creation and publication. It is, as one would expect, a dismal Ginsburg opinion which, like Eldred, is willfully blind to the practice of ever ratcheting term extensions or the nefarious use of treaties as an end run around Congress.
Re: Re: Hmmmm - wouldn't extension only apply to "new" pictures?
This. Here’s an article about the case: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/18/2247223/us-supreme-court-upholds-removal-of-works-from-public-domain
Re: Re: Re: Hmmmm - wouldn't extension only apply to "new" pictures?
Techdirt has covered the “Golan Case” extensively in the past. It’s sad to see that a fairly recent topic with such enormous impact has apparently been largely forgotten (other than a couple of anonymous commenters).
Re: Re: Re:2 Hmmmm - wouldn't extension only apply to "new" pictures?
Yeah, I remember. I was trying to find the Techdirt stories, but searching was taking longer than I had available so I went with an easier-to-find link.
As an argentinian, I’m already moving towards doing something about it.
Here’s hoping this is something the US won’t push too much on us for.
For the record, I'd been for 28 year limits, but after seeing examples here of how good it is to lock up crap, I'm for eternity.
Also, corporations should never be permitted to monetize the “public domain”, as they are not the public, just legal fictions that the public foolishly let get out of control.
For the record, I'd been for 28 year limits, but after seeing examples here of how good it is to lock up crap, I'm for eternity.
Also, corporations should never be permitted to monetize the “public domain”, as they are not the public, just legal fictions that we persons foolishly let get out of control.
Re: Re:
No one’s going to believe a cunt that thinks poor people don’t deserve healthcare.
Here’s to locking this sack of crap up for eternity, i.e. you!
The Argentina’s constitution and law don’t permit the retroactivity
Re: Re:
Pretty sure US law doesn’t allow retroactive law changes either, but as everyone can see, that didn’t present more than a minor speedbump in them doing it anyway.
Re: Re: Re:
(Hit enter too soon)
The point being, just because it’s not technically allowed under the law or constitution, don’t expect them to care if they’re determined enough to force the law into the books.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Pretty sure US law doesn’t allow retroactive law changes either”
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was amended to give retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that broke the law when they illegally spied on the public, as well granting retroactive immunity to the government officials who ordered them to break the law.
And let’s not forget that the Supreme Court basically creates its own laws that can over-ride everything else (even the Constitution).
In Golan v. Gonzales / Golan v. Holder (2012) the U.S. Supreme Court re-classified numerous foreign-country works that had been in the public-domain for decades and placed them under new copyright terms.
Re: Re: Re:
This is exactly right. Retroactive copyright extension is blatantly unconstitutional, because the Constitution says, in perfect plainness, that we can’t pass any ex post facto (retroactive) laws. But that hasn’t stopped publishing interests from getting them passed…
Down the copyright memoryhole.
20 year ago photo
Personally I am haunted by my photos from 20 years ago. I was such a dork loser sporting the 70’s 80’s hair due though it was in the 90’s. I don’t want them to last longer…
Is this Argentina simply kissing Americas ass, I held out hope for South America thinking it would try to be a beacon of progressive thinking, I thought wrong.
Wikipedia should replace all affected photos with a notice
For a few days, Wikipedia should replace all affected photos with a notice about the proposed change.
These types of changes to laws slip in because people either don’t know about it, or think that they won’t be affected. Show them how they would be affected and an educated populace may push back on such changes.
Listen, if we don’t allow photo creators the rights to their photos, no one would take pictures. This is only fair, the people who took pictures in the past knew that copyright would be retroactively reinstated, which is why they took the photos. You copyright freetards are all ignorant of why people take photographs. Also my business should be able to take the copyrights that small individuals who can’t afford to fight me in court over pretend to currently own.
I still cannot wait to see how the ttp will whitewash countries that encourage slavery and if they will make it commonplace in current countries where it is illegal to make everyone the same.
Since in theory laws prohibiting slavery would hurt profit margins. They could rule that slavery is allowed if such a thing were passed hypothetically
FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN HELPING, with a group of colleagues we’ve put together this declaration (in spanish): http://www.vialibre.org.ar/2015/10/02/organizaciones-contra-la-privatizacion-del-patrimonio-fotografico-en-argentina/ which also has a small gif with some of the photos that will be lost if this proposal is enacted.
A good way to help for those who have twitter is to send that gif with a simple tweet to @lilianamazure and @argra_ (the main proposers of the modification) and also to @SeminaraEduardo and @gastonharispe , which are the others who are signing the project. Or if you get inspired do your own gif, or feel free to say whatever you want to them!
Please help spread the word!
Thanks!
link to impacted photos on Wikimedia Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD-AR-Photo
10,060 photos. Some could be old enough to not be impacted, but at a glance those are a small proportion.
Re: link to impacted photos on Wikimedia Commons
My guess is that there are going to be plenty more than that. And anyway it doesn’t matter because if you just think about it, it will mean that photos from recent historical events of great importance (such as the military coup of 1970) will basically disappear.
IDS
Would the public be able to sue for loss through an IDS tribunal?
Re: IDS
Only if we organize as The Public, Inc.
28 Years
Copyright was originally, and really should still be, 28 years, 14 years + a non-automatically renewable term of 14 years.
Back when the first copyright law was passed in 1780, there was no real incentive to create new works. The creators just kept raking in money from the existing ones.
Copyright forced the works into the public domain. If you wanted a continuing income stream, you created new works. That’s the way copyright works. The creator gets *SOME* protection before the work falls into the public domain.
Copywrong never dies.
Does this apply to things that are already in the public domain? Most of the 20th century should already have passed in to the public domain.
Extending copyright on existing works is one thing, restoring copyright to works whose copyright has expired is quite a bigger beast.
So, should we get rid of copyrights entirely or get rid of Argentina instead? (or just cry for Argentina?)
Re: Re:
I see what you did there. +1
No more pictures for you
Management sometimes makes bad decisions. Judges sometimes make bad rulings. Legislators sometimes make bad laws. When Argentina passes this bad law, simply announce that Wikipedia photos will no longer appear inside Argentina. Let ’em use a proxy or a VPN & take the long way ’round.
Or just shut the whole thing down for ’em. “We’re sorry, the Wikipedia service is no longer available in your region.” & the rest of the world just moves on without ’em.
citations
In the U.S. public domain works do not need citations. If works go back under copyright, and there is no citation, how do you get permissions?
And how do you get a copy of the Will of the deceased person, and contact the heirs? Where did the person die?
How does this work?
Re: citations
Oh but I’m sure they’d be glad to set up an extor- I mean collections agency to handle that sort of thing. And if they can’t or aren’t interested in finding the actual photographers to give them their money, why I suppose they’d just have to keep that tiny amount of money all for themselves, what else could they do with it?
Could someone order argentina a nation size cake please, so that they can eat it
Like children around a cookie jar when mom & dad aren't looking.
I’d like to think a lot more of all my fellow human beings, but this sort of crap isn’t encouraging. Unlike cookie theft, these guys aren’t even trying to hide it behind their backs when caught. It’s more a “Nyaa, nyaa, you can’t stop me!” insolence kind of thing. They need to be spanked (but that’s abusive nowadays, I suppose).
Pathetic. They’re wandering around tossing economic hand grenades. It’s depressing that they’ll likely get away with it. Remember that line from the first “Rollerball” movie: “We just lost the 13th Century.” QED.