|
home · articles · egypt's attempted 5000 year copyright extension |
A key change at iCommons
If you're not part of the iCommons mailing list, take a look at the letter that Heather Ford, Executive Director of iCommons, sent to the list yesterday:
Dear friends,
At the 2 August iCommons Board Meeting, the board decided to make some difficult but necessary changes at iCommons. It has become clear over the past months that our vision for iCommons is different from the... more
|
| |
Egypt's Attempted 5000 Year Copyright Extension
Eric Kansa · Berkeley (United States) · Jan 11th, 2008 8:53 pm · 41 votes · 7 comments
|
| |
| Modified image of Akhenaten & family worshiping the sun-disc Aten (or copyright), by Wikipedia |
 |
A recent announcement from the Egyptian Supreme Council for Antiquities caused something of an Internet news stir, seeing active discussion on several blogs and other outlets, including high traffic sites such as BoingBoing and Slashdot.
According to a report from the BBC, the Egyptian Government is about to enact a copyright law to protect Egyptian antiquities, and this law would apply to all nations. Zahi Hawass, who leads the Supreme Council for Antiquities (the agency responsible for Egypt’s cultural heritage) claims that the licensing money is needed to maintain monuments in Egypt. The main target of this very far-reaching legislation seems to be ancient Egyptian-themed commercial parks. Commercial uses of Egyptian antiquities (such as a picture of the Giza Pyramids) would require a licence from the Egyptian state, as would any “full-scale” replica.
As radical and seemingly bizarre as this move seems, it is clearly part of a larger pattern of the expanding scope and application of intellectual property regimes, and the growing tie between intellectual property and nationalist and identity politics.
It’s understandable because the U.S. and the European Union have long advocated intellectual property maximalism (expanding the scope and reach of copyright and patents), usually to the disadvantage of the developing world. The Egyptian case, in many ways, reflects a growing trend on the part of the “Global South” to attempt to use their own versions of intellectual property protectionism for their advantage. For example, Peru has laws to regulate access to genetic resources of its natural heritage. Similarly, India has also enacted legislation to protect some traditional medical knowledge. The issue of “bio-piracy” in general reflects how nations in the developing world as well as some indigenous communities are attempting to use intellectual property legal frameworks to benefit from developments in biotechnology.
Intellectual property laws, in general, are typically justified to encourage innovation and creativity. Without some legal rules to extract rents, theoretically there would be less incentive to invent new technologies or make new art. Egypt’s move to claim copyright over 4000-year old monuments obviously has nothing to do with motivating new creativity or invention, since the creators of these antiquities are long dead. In the common understanding of copyright, such works would belong to the public domain, and would be available to all for any purpose. Nevertheless, as pointed out in the comments made on “Ancient World Blogger Group,” Chuck Jones noted that the Greek Ministry of Culture claims copyright over all images made of ancient Greek monuments. Intellectual property rights (IPR) considerations feature prominently in digitisation and online dissemination efforts of Classical Antiquities (see example). Thus, with Greece (and to a lesser extent Italy) as a model, the Egyptian move in this direction is not very surprising.
Egypt’s move is another case where the public domain is being both undermined by intellectual property maximalists in the developed world and questioned by some developing nations and indigenous community organisations. This debate is more than a question over business models, freedoms of speech and “remixing”; it also contains important and difficult cross-cultural human rights questions.
Motivations to claim property rights over natural and cultural heritage in an attempt to gain some financial benefits are only part of the picture. Asserting such intellectual property rights is also a political act, which often has an ethno-nationalist agenda. Various national cultural ministries typically have explicit mandates to help create and reinforce shared notions of heritage. By claiming ownership over cultural heritage in the name of a nation, such ministries also attempt to exert some control over the use and application of heritage. Sub-national groups, such as indigenous and tribal communities often use similar strategies to reinforce and express their own identity claims. See this post by Kim Christensen who reflects on some of these efforts, and ends with a critique on a universal concept of the “commons,” pointing instead to a model of local custodianship. Her work and the work of other anthropologists helps illustrate the cross-cultural dilemmas in a global commons, as well as the contradictions and problems inherent in some ethno-nationalist claims over culture.
Egypt’s case is interesting, because of the complex role that the legacy of the Pharaohs plays in modern Egyptian politics and identity. Many Egyptians take great pride in the accomplishments of the ancient civilization on the Nile, but this view is also tempered by an Islamic world-view that sees the Pharaonic past as part of a pagan age of darkness and ignorance. In any event, Egyptian policy makers are acutely aware of both how the international IPR regime stacks the deck against them, and also how important antiquities are to their economy. The Supreme Council for Antiquities is resource-starved and has great difficulty paying for the upkeep and maintenance of thousands of monuments situated among a poor and rapidly growing population. Since tourism is so strategically important for Egypt, perhaps any competition in the tourist experience of Egyptian antiquities may be something of an economic threat - hence, the move to monopolise the legacy of the Pharaohs. While there is a logic to this, the effort will be hard to enforce and may backfire (as the RIAA has damaged the music recording industry). Keeping ancient Pharaohs in the commons may have an unrecognised, but potentially larger value to Egypt. The continual use and expression of ancient Egyptian styles, motifs, and references may help keep ancient Egypt alive and relevant in the popular imagination, and may generate more interest to travel to the source of Egypt’s glorious past.
Egypt’s claims over its (and world) heritage help illustrate the complexity of the international IP terrain. Identity is turning into a key element in IPR struggles and impact questions beyond copyright. Geographic Indicators (GI’s) are an increasingly important form of trade-marking that prohibits (for instance) people outside a particular region in France from bottling certain types of bubbly wine as “champagne”. According to WIPO:
The use of geographical indications is not limited to agricultural products. They may also highlight specific qualities of a product which are due to human factors that can be found in the place of origin of the products, such as specific manufacturing skills and traditions. That place of origin may be a village or town, a region or a country. An example for the latter is "Switzerland" or "Swiss," which is perceived as a geographical indication in many countries for products that are made in Switzerland and, in particular, for watches.
This statement is fascinating and possibly deeply troubling. It can be taken as a celebration of tradition and locality, or read much like nationalist discourse of such concepts as “blood” and “soil.” If the later is emphasized, GI's run counter to the ever-present sharing and transmission of culture, the mutability of identities, and all sorts of remixing and hybridisations that we celebrate as part of the commons.
I wonder if Egypt will move to include Geographic Indicators in their claims and, instead of copyrighting pyramids and hieroglyphics, attempt to trademark them? I am not a lawyer and I don’t know the scope of Geographic Indicators, but I would not be surprised.
tags: berkeley united states culture cultural-heritage heritage copyright ip antiquities archaeology egypt ancient
|
|
|
| |
add a comment: you must be logged on in order to comment. please log in or register at iCommons.org and and your comments right after.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
send
printer-friendly version
invite to vote
add a comment
