There Can Be Only One... Taj Mahal?
from the people-are-too-protective dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in the story from late last week about how India is protesting a wealthy Bangladeshi's plan to build an exact replica of the Taj Mahal, claiming that India has some sort of "copyright" on the building. Of course, it's not actually a "copyright," and no one seems able to present a single shred of evidence as to what law would prevent someone in an entirely different country from copying the building. The reality is that there isn't likely to be any such law, and even if there were, it wouldn't hold any sway in another country. However, this is yet another case, such as the Lebanese attempt to claim ownership of such popular foods as falafel and hummus, where, in the pursuit of national pride, some people seem to ignore any rational thought.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bangladesh, india, taj mahal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
its national monument, im sure if someone else tried to build an exact replica of the White House people would protest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If someone built a copy of the white house, I'd say "what a lame attempt at generating tourism. Who wants to go see some wanker's copy when I could go see the real thing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Protest? Perhaps. But the question is why? And what legal right would they have if they did protest? (Answer: none).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Build a White House. That would be pretty darn flattering.
It would be much more flattering than replicating any of our nationally recognized tombs or funereal areas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
also agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: also agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's their right to complain just like it's someone else's right to complain that they are complaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why no copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why no copyright?
Because the Taj Mahal is over 350 years old. Any relevant copyrights would have expired long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why no copyright?
They can simply pass the Indian version of the Sonny Bono copyright extension act and make copyright as long as necessary, retroactively. In fact Disney would probably love that because then they have a really sweet precedent when they want to 'harmonise' copyright law elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why no copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why no copyright?
Because the Taj Mahal is over 350 years old. Any relevant copyrights would have expired long ago.
It's a creature of statute. India can say the term of copyright is whatever the hell it feels like, and can do it for only one building if it wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The One and Only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fyi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Town
Persona lly I think copying the Taj is just a bad idea, but the Indian government is also giving it unnecessary publicity by raising a storm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TechDirt?
> LegalDirt instead of TechDirt to me...
You know, you are perfectly free to stop reading the site if it no longer meets your needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sure, they could. why would a bangladeshi business man give a flying fig, though?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about blueprints?
If that precedent is already set, the owners of the Taj Mahal could also argue that they have a copyright to the blueprints (as long as they grant a 1000-year+ extension to copyright... but that's not as ridiculous as it sounds anymore).
It's going to be interesting to see if Disney will be forced to take down its Taj Mahal replica from Epcot center because of this. The irony would be delicious, as they were the ones who set the extensions in motion in the first place, but I'm not going to hold my breath that a court will rule against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about blueprints?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lighten Up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copydirt!!!!!
Legal but immoral...
BTW, I agree with B. Mike seems to have become an "expert" on copyright issues (did you see wired article??) and that is the issue he always wants to talk about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copydirt!!!!!
Wait, this isn't Hype Hair.com! YOU IMPOSTORS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taj Mahal Replacement?
Just like they blew up all those huge Buddhas.
That will just take more dynamite, but they seem to have plenty of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feta?
So if someone makes a building and calls it Taj Mahal, why wouldnt the Indian government think it somehow owned the right to that?
It's the natural consequence of the sick IP laws we have in the world today, where immaterial goods = material goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]