© Egypt

The Egyptian parliament is about to pass a law that would require any replicas of ancient Egyptian artifacts and monuments to pay royalties for the use of the design.

Mr Hawass said the law would apply to full-scale replicas of any object in any museum in Egypt.

“Commercial use” of ancient monuments like the pyramids or the sphinx would also be controlled, he said.

“Even if it is for private use, they must have permission from the Egyptian government,” he added.

But he said the law would not stop local and international artists reproducing monuments as long as they were not exact replicas.

Sadly, that means the Luxor in Vegas would be exempt because it’s tarted up far beyond the point of replica (and good taste, of course).

EDIT: More analysis of the practicalities here.

The Sphinx ©

RSS feed

16 Comments »

Comment by Clutch
2007-12-27 09:03:13

Can they do this? I haven’t seen much discussion of the legality or enforceability of this copyright.

(Comments won't nest below this level)
Comment by livius drusus
2007-12-27 09:39:29

They can pass any law they want, I suppose. I don’t see that it’s remotely enforceable internationally. The illegal replicators will just have to be sure to avoid going to Egypt.

 
 
Comment by Clutch
2007-12-28 18:54:03

From the follow-up article:

UNESCO and Lufti’s organization are trying to develop the idea – which still has not won wide backing – that a nation has the right to defend how its folklore and heritage are used internationally.

I dunno. Of course a nation has the right to “defend” these things — in print, or by otherwise correcting the record. But charging intellectual property fees? I think somebody got a little thought balloon with “EASY MONEY!” inside it, and we’re looking at the result.

(Comments won't nest below this level)
Comment by livius drusus
2007-12-28 19:10:08

I think you’re probably right, although I don’t think the “easy money” idea went much further than the having of it. It’s unenforceable, and even if it could be enforced, all anybody would have to do is alter the replica — even just the scale — to be exempt from fees.

I can’t help but suspect pure Hawass publicity stunt. He’s into that sort of “respect mah ancient properteh!1” grandstanding.

Comment by Clutch
2007-12-28 20:11:21

I suspect your suspicion is correct.

Comment by livius drusus
2007-12-28 20:45:27

I also suspect you’re awesome.

 
Comment by Clutch
2007-12-29 20:44:04

Ha ha! Your automated no-further-nesting message has a grammatical error. The demonstration of your omnipotent ability to defy the message only underscores your powerlessness to correct it!

 
Comment by livius drusus
2007-12-29 22:04:47

The paradox. It burns!

 
Comment by livius drusus
2007-12-29 22:37:01

MY OMNIPOTENCE PWNS YET AGAIN

 
 
 
 
Comment by Clutch
2007-12-30 12:58:42

:notworthy:

(Comments won't nest below this level)
 
Comment by Sandy
2012-10-30 13:58:04

I’m very law abiding. I’ll be happy to pay a royalty fee to the original artist of anything I decide to copy, providing he can still prove that he still holds the original copyright.

Otherwise, I’ll buy a hot fudge sundae with the money.

(Comments won't nest below this level)
Comment by livius drusus
2012-10-30 17:11:15

A highly ethical stance, although it would be more so if the sundae were caramel.

 
 
Comment by Sandy
2012-10-30 13:59:20

Ummm…delete the first “still”…she said out of the depths of compulsivity.

(Comments won't nest below this level)
Comment by livius drusus
2012-10-30 17:09:55

😆 I have nothing but respect for so compelling a compulsion.

 
 
Comment by Sandy
2012-10-30 17:25:30

:boogie: I went to school to nuns.

(Comments won't nest below this level)
 
Comment by Sandy
2012-10-30 17:26:44

Caramel is good, too. Hot fudge has a slight lead, with me, but I’m not fussy.

Except, maybe, for kiwi.

(Comments won't nest below this level)
 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI