The 8,000 Year Copyright?

from the forever-minus-a-day dept

Thu, Apr 23rd 2009 5:10pm — Mike Masnick

There's a popular saying among copyright maximalists, that if copyright must be "for limited times," it should be "forever minus a day." And, in fact, part of the problem with the so-called "education" campaign that copyright supporters have been pushing over the past decade or so is that they never bother to spend much time on consumer rights, fair use or the importance of the public domain. So, it should come as little surprise that the default thinking among many is that copyright does, in fact, last forever. Witness this story that plenty of folks have been sending in, about the United Nations new World Digital Library that has posted ancient texts from around the world. Just one problem... the site is claiming that the texts may be covered by copyright, even though many of the texts are older than 8,000 years. Obviously, the copyright claim is wrong, but it seems to be the default position taken by lawyers these days, and many people who have falsely been told that "sharing" equals "theft" will believe that copyright lasts forever. For anyone who actually recognizes the importance and value of the public domain, and how it's helped expand our creative culture over the years, this should be quite depressing.

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: copyright, united nations, world digital library

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TheStupidOne, 23 Apr 2009 @ 5:26pm

Well ...
My father's father's father's ... (and so on) wrote that and I find it completely ridiculus that anybody thinks they can read or even see those documents without my explicit permission. I DEMAND MONEY FOR MY ANCESTOR'S WORK!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 23 Apr 2009 @ 5:28pm

Copyrighted by Whom?
If the UN is claiming copyright ownership, how did they acquire copyright ownership? Where is the "chain of title"?

If the copyright remains with the descendants, by this time virtually everyone in the world would be a partial owner and entitled to use the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MoreStupidThanHim, 23 Apr 2009 @ 5:34pm

Who's law?
What if at the time Thag produced the cave drawings the copyright on the work was for 9000 years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 23 Apr 2009 @ 6:09pm
  
  Re: Who's law?
  Yes, but did Thag plagiarize in the first place? If so, that REALLY complicates things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luís Carvalho, 23 Apr 2009 @ 5:43pm

They are actualy copyrighted.

The owner is Humanity. Each and every single one of us, owns it.

So, if you are a alien, trying to download our culture, we have legitimate reason to blast you.

Oh! And the cave paintings, they are owned too. So, if you plan to use anything even remotely inspired in that work, technique or method, you will have to pay all of us rights.

We humans, own in perpetuity ALL the human culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NZN, 23 Apr 2009 @ 7:24pm
  
  Re:
  Indeed. He speaks for the People. Even though the letter 'e' was copyrighted by it's founder, my ancestor, under eternal Terms written in blood and sealed in stone as writ of original covenant... his words are our words. So back off Alien infestor... you have been warned!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 23 Apr 2009 @ 6:10pm

Sounds like a good Onion article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 23 Apr 2009 @ 6:15pm

The copyright claim is probably trying to be made on specific translations of the ancient texts, rather than the ancient texts themselves.

It's still stupid, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1812lsd, 23 Apr 2009 @ 6:17pm

The mighty wheel.
My ancestor's created the wheel, car makers owe me a whole load of cash!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silly billy, 23 Apr 2009 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re: The mighty wheel.
  how 'bout some stock?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2009 @ 7:12pm

Where?
I have read the legal page several times and yet do not see any claim that 8,000 year old works are covered by copyright. I wish someone would check these things out just once before they write about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2009 @ 8:36pm
  
  Re: Where?
  Agreed. This is slashdotters (and subsequently techdirt) going off with sensational bullshit that has no grounding in fact.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LostSailor, 24 Apr 2009 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re: Where?
    Indeed, Mike is once again taking an offhand, and flatly wrong, comment in the Slashdot article and claiming something that isn't true. I'm going to guess it's because he doesn't actually look at the linked documents or sites before flinging out a facile and usually overblown commentary.
    
    The WDL site is not claiming copyright in the underlying documents submitted by their partners. Further, the legal page does not say that the documents are covered by copyright, but that they may be and it is up to someone who wants to use them to contact the partner who submitted the item to determine whether there is a copyright concern.
    
    Here's the language:
    
    Content found on the WDL Web site is contributed by WDL partners. Copyright questions about partner content should be directed to that partner. When publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in a WDL partner's collections, the researcher has the obligation to determine and satisfy domestic and international copyright law or other use restrictions.
    
    Even a cursory visit to the site shows a "timeline" slider going from 8000 BC to 2009 AD. Using this slider, one can within seconds determine that there are 201 items dated 1921-2009, some of which might presumably be covered by copyright.
    
    Mike says: Obviously, the copyright claim is wrong, but it seems to be the default position taken by lawyers these days, and many people who have falsely been told that "sharing" equals "theft" will believe that copyright lasts forever.
    
    Since he apparently didn't bother to actually do any actual research he didn't see that this statement is obviously wrong.
    
    Then there's this: There's a popular saying among copyright maximalists, that if copyright must be "for limited times," it should be "forever minus a day."
    
    Source please? I've never heard anyone ever use this "popular" saying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The infamous Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Where?
      Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the legal page is a "you deal with it" kind of thing.
      
      However:
      
      Source please? I've never heard anyone ever use this "popular" saying.
      
      A simple google search would lend you the answer. I picked the wikipedia page because everything else seemed to be pdfs.
      
      I hope that clears things up. These extreme pro-IP people are completely insane.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - LostSailor, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Where?
        Well, since I have to usually follow up with actual reading beyond the first link in Mike's posts, it seemed only fair to ask him to cite his source for this "popular" saying.
        
        Looking at your google search, all the reference I find are by copyright opponents to the same thing: Jack Valenti apparently said this, and Mary Bono repeated it in a House speech. That's it. I'd like to know how many "copyright maximalists" there are and how many of them use this "popular" saying. I suspect it might be "popular" only to Mike and copyright opponents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where?
        Well, I guess there are two, so far. So it appeared popular among two, one of whom is now dead. So I guess it is popular among one copyright maximalist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Where?
      Source please? I've never heard anyone ever use this "popular" saying.
      
      You have to remember the context of the usage of "popular." Mike was saying "popular" as used by copyright maximalists. There may be no such people in your entire state - there are very few, if any, in my state - so you may never have heard the saying.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? I mean REALLY??, 23 Apr 2009 @ 7:23pm

Ignorance, selfishness, stupidity
So how is buying a book and sharing it with a friend who shares it with a friend any different then making a digital copy of a work and sharing it online? Why is it when technology gets involved it's the end of the world for a few people because it's getting out of control?

Copying VHS and casette's wasn't an issue in the 80's
but OMG when people share mp3's and digital copies of text they will pay!!!!

Innovation! Get on the bandwagon or get left in the technological dust! You can still profit from this you whiny little kids, but you have to STOP WHINING!!! Step up and take that which has offended you and turn it around into the next big thing. You can sell a hardback and a softback book... why not start selling e-books! WOW WHAT A HARD CONCEPT!!!

Can't control something? Sell it cheaper and faster; then you can control it! How do you think Wal-Mart has gotten this far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mechwarrior, 24 Apr 2009 @ 6:03am
  
  Re: Ignorance, selfishness, stupidity
  VHS was a huge thorn on the side of Hollywood. They couldnt control how it was used or what was recorded on the tapes. They fought for years to put laws to basically ban VHS recorders. Obviously they failed.
  
  And they will continue failing with controlling the internet. So, not much loss for most people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2009 @ 9:01am
  
  Re: Ignorance, selfishness, stupidity
  "Copying VHS and casette's wasn't an issue in the 80's"
  
  Erm... actually yes, they were. Google "Universal vs Sony" for the Betamax action (applicable to VHS as well) and "home taping is killing music" for the panic that the RIAA tried to start surrounding audio cassettes.
  
  The solution for them in both cases was simple - listen to customer demand and give them something they want. They're just panicking because a simple format shift isn't going to cut it this time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2009 @ 7:31pm

Pooper...
If the Greeks invented anal sex, they should sue the World Digital Library, the US, and many other governments for the mass anal rapings they've conducted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Professoriate, 23 Apr 2009 @ 8:01pm

Translation
The World Digital Library legal disclaimer expressly states that content is contributed by partners and questions regarding copyright should be directed at those partners. Though I share the general concern about intellectual property rights, etc., I think the WDL -- which is about the free distribution and sharing on these documents -- is the wrong target for your article.

You may also want to consider the issue of language. It hasn't been the same for 8,000 years. It is true that any intellectual property claim to the original content is ridiculous, 99.9% of readers will only deal with it in translation and that translation is the much more recent work -- which might be due some IP consideration. Finally, if a recently discovered ancient text or the translation of it are subsequently proved to be misdated, misattributed, or outright fraudulent, that could also have an impact on the associated rights. There are reasons the WDL needs a legal disclaimer page that have nothing to do with the issues you mention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 23 Apr 2009 @ 11:56pm
  
  Re: Translation
  Professoriate wrote:
  
  The World Digital Library legal disclaimer expressly states that content is contributed by partners and questions regarding copyright should be directed at those partners.
  
  Why? It’s not usual for distributors to claim copyright in the goods being distributed, just because they’re distributing them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 5:29am
    
    Re: Re: Translation
    Why what? This sentence is not a claim of copyright at all. Re-read the sentence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Garry, 24 Apr 2009 @ 3:22am
  
  Re: Translation
  I think the issue at hand is even simpler. The items from the period 8000 - 499 BC are photographed. The Copyright is attributed to the photographer in the articles.
  
  I would have been nice for someone to have taken the same photos and publish them under a Creative Commons licence. Then this library could be more interesting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 5:28am
  
  Re: Translation
  Exactly. All the legal disclaimer page is saying is that because of the various states involved that they are not in a position to determine whether copyright issues exist. That is not the same as saying copyright exists on an 8,000-year-old work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 24 Apr 2009 @ 1:09am

Lawers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 24 Apr 2009 @ 1:12am

Lawers
By the same logic we can then assume that all lawyers are corrupt thieves and should be stoned on sight to save civilization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 4:13am

I had a similar issue when I went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls. The guide told us no pictures. I asked why, expecting some scientific thing on the light degrading the fragile paper. Nope copyright.

I said, they are thousands of years old, how can there be a copyright. He said if you take pictures of those fragments, you are stealing. I laughed, and said, surely you can see the difference:

I infringed on the copyright of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
or
I stole the Dead Sea Scrolls.

He didn't think it was funny as I did, so I shut up at that point so I could actually see them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 5:32am
  
  Re:
  That is dumb. Flash photography is frequently not permitted for some historical documents because the light causes deterioration of the documents. Because some cameras and film speeds (depending on whether you are digital) require flash, and because flash is so often built into cameras, it is easier to have a blanket restriction on photography. Though some places state "no flash photography." There are no copyright issues on the dead sea scrolls. He did not know what he was talking about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 5:03am

Billy and Tommy are playing in daycare. Billy lets Tommy use his red firetruck. Billy is now a thief, because he shared his truck with Tommy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 5:33am
  
  Re:
  Billy is not a thief. He had license to the red truck. It was his to give permission to loan. Your example is specious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Luís Carvalho, 24 Apr 2009 @ 5:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Next day, Billy left is red firetruck alone and went to play with the yellow racing car.
    
    Tommy sees the red firetruck and plays with it.
    
    Tommy is now a Pirate.
    
    The daycare will be prosecuted for allowing piracy.
    
    In the end of the day, Billy still takes the yellow racing car, and, the red firetruck home with him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If the red firetruck was left unattended in a public place, the Tommy cannot be a pirate. The red firetruck was legitimately purchased, and license for the red firetruck attaches to the red firetruck (assuming no contractual obligations). When the red firetruck was left unattended in a public place, it was effectively abandoned. Tommy is now a salvager. However, Tommy nows owes the state a percentage of any proceeds he gets for salvaging the abandoned red firetruck, if he sells it for profit. Unfortunately for Billy, he no longer owns the red firetruck because he abandoned it.
      
      At the end of the day Billy takes the yellow racing car with him, and Tommy takes his salvaged red firetruck with him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dohn Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 6:38am

"Education"
...and here is a Wal-Mart employee "expert" resulting from that "education":

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080813/0402251963.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex (profile), 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:55am

"forever minus a day" is still "forever"
Those who understand the arithmetic of infinity would know that "forever minus a day" is still "forever".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re: "forever minus a day" is still "forever"
  I think we all understand that it is forever. Do you have a point besides the obvious one?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloodyscot, 25 Apr 2009 @ 7:06pm

is forever long enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloodyscot, 25 Apr 2009 @ 7:21pm

is forever long enough?
The only thing stopping copyrights being forever minus a day is the politicians like to get paid in campaign funds every 20yrs or so.
The copyright lobby maybe the most powerful group in the world, they control TV, newpapers, movies, music, radio, books, most news outlets and to lesser degree cable and software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
plastic molding, 16 May 2009 @ 3:26am

thank you!
How's China printing industry developed this years, who can tell us? China based plastic injection molding services with low costs and supeior quality Steel and aluminum scaffolding for construction is a very useful tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sprearson81 (profile), 8 Jun 2012 @ 6:43pm

Hmm, whose law, my law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]