12 ms·

It's hilarious to me they're claiming copyright over it. The original copyright holder, Nefertiti, died over three millennia ago, and she sure as shit wouldn't

It's hilarious to me they're claiming copyright over it. The original copyright holder, Nefertiti, died over three millennia ago, and she sure as shit wouldn't have transferred the copyright to the German government. I wonder if their copyright claim has any relevance to the ongoing demands for repatriation to Egypt. If the German government claims copyright, certainly the Egyptian government has a better copyright claim. There's probably some sort of legal gotcha! in there but I don't know what it is. Certainly the fact that the German government is claiming copyright protection for a 3,000 year old Egyptian artifact they stole 80 years ago should clue us in that copyright law is fucking broken.

philpem 7y ago
I wonder if their argument is somewhat similar to the "database right" - the common example being a telephone directory. There's no copyright in the mapping between names and phone numbers, but there is in the specific database of them. (IANAL, don't take this as gospel!) So while the original artefact may be long out of copyright, are they under the impression that their scan is somehow a new work or some kind of copyrightable derivative? I do love the way this came about -- first an bland statement that they derive profit from licensing, followed by (legitimately) asking for the data to support that claim under FOIA. Fantastic!
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  A telephone directory is the standard example (in the US) of a work in which there is no intellectual property right at all. Are you thinking of something else, or perhaps a different country? https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Reading the wikipedia summary, it looks like the key points of the decision are: - The association between an individual phone number and an individual name is an uncopyrightable fact. - A collection of uncopyrightable facts may nevertheless be copyrightable, given the editorial creativity involved in compiling those facts. - But the phone book involves no editorial discretion whatever; it is a list of every subscriber to the company (no discretion over what data is or isn't included), in alphabetical order (no discretion over what order the data is presented in), which the company is legally required to produce.
  - philpem 7y ago
    I think I've picked a bad example! I was thinking along the same lines you explained -- that the facts wouldn't be copyrightable, but the overall work might be. To that effect - the scan produces a point-cloud. If you repeated the scan, you'd get almost the same point-cloud. Thus, the point-cloud is a fact. But the process of taking that point cloud produces a work, given the creativity involved in cleaning it up and checking accuracy, then making it into a model fit for release. I was under the impression that the phone book's appearance and layout might be copyrightable (trade dress/look and feel), though that's more likely a trademark issue than a copyright one.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > given the creativity involved in cleaning it up and checking accuracy This opinion isn't informed by anything, but I feel like the more effort you put into making sure your point cloud is accurate, the more fact-like and therefore uncopyrightable the point cloud becomes.
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Don't I own the copyright for something if I buy it? So, 'stolen 80 years ago' aside, as long as the German govt owns it, they have the current copyrights?
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  No, you buy the chattel property right in the manifestation itself, but not copyright. Even if that is an original work. Unless copyright is specifically conveyed. That is, the copyright in, say, a book, and the original manuscript of a book itself, are two separate legal entities. You might own the copyright and not the manuscript, or the manuscript and not the copyright, or both, or neither. Once the copyright itself has expired, you could own the manuscript itself, and use that to produce copies. But there is no longer an exclusive right to make those copies, so there is no copyright to be owned. (General case, specific law may vary by country.)

philpem 7y ago

I wonder if their argument is somewhat similar to the "database right" - the common example being a telephone directory. There's no copyright in the mapping between names and phone numbers, but there is in the specific database of them. (IANAL, don't take this as gospel!) So while the original artefact may be long out of copyright, are they under the impression that their scan is somehow a new work or some kind of copyrightable derivative? I do love the way this came about -- first an bland statement that they derive profit from licensing, followed by (legitimately) asking for the data to support that claim under FOIA. Fantastic!

thaumasiotes 7y ago
A telephone directory is the standard example (in the US) of a work in which there is no intellectual property right at all. Are you thinking of something else, or perhaps a different country? https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Reading the wikipedia summary, it looks like the key points of the decision are: - The association between an individual phone number and an individual name is an uncopyrightable fact. - A collection of uncopyrightable facts may nevertheless be copyrightable, given the editorial creativity involved in compiling those facts. - But the phone book involves no editorial discretion whatever; it is a list of every subscriber to the company (no discretion over what data is or isn't included), in alphabetical order (no discretion over what order the data is presented in), which the company is legally required to produce.
- philpem 7y ago
  I think I've picked a bad example! I was thinking along the same lines you explained -- that the facts wouldn't be copyrightable, but the overall work might be. To that effect - the scan produces a point-cloud. If you repeated the scan, you'd get almost the same point-cloud. Thus, the point-cloud is a fact. But the process of taking that point cloud produces a work, given the creativity involved in cleaning it up and checking accuracy, then making it into a model fit for release. I was under the impression that the phone book's appearance and layout might be copyrightable (trade dress/look and feel), though that's more likely a trademark issue than a copyright one.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > given the creativity involved in cleaning it up and checking accuracy This opinion isn't informed by anything, but I feel like the more effort you put into making sure your point cloud is accurate, the more fact-like and therefore uncopyrightable the point cloud becomes.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Don't I own the copyright for something if I buy it? So, 'stolen 80 years ago' aside, as long as the German govt owns it, they have the current copyrights?

dredmorbius 7y ago
No, you buy the chattel property right in the manifestation itself, but not copyright. Even if that is an original work. Unless copyright is specifically conveyed. That is, the copyright in, say, a book, and the original manuscript of a book itself, are two separate legal entities. You might own the copyright and not the manuscript, or the manuscript and not the copyright, or both, or neither. Once the copyright itself has expired, you could own the manuscript itself, and use that to produce copies. But there is no longer an exclusive right to make those copies, so there is no copyright to be owned. (General case, specific law may vary by country.)