Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United Arab Emirates

This talk page may have a limited number of watchers. Issues concerning the copyright rules of the United Arab Emirates may get more attention if a notice of the discussion here is given at a general page like Commons:Village pump/Copyright or Commons talk:Freedom of panorama.

Somebody wrote that certain United Arab Emirates stamps are in the public domain. But I see no indication that this has been verified. I mean it could be true, but how would we know? it requires a lawyer fluent in Arabic who knows the UAE legal system as it relates to two laws seemingly in conflict. Without that, it is irresponsible of Wikimedia Commons to declare these works to be in the public domain. Senator2029 07:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A continuation of Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/06#UAE copyright law before 1992. Did UAE had copyright law before 1992, and if so, automatically protected works or protected works of architecture? It might be possible that Jumeirah Mosque and other buildings completed before 1992 may be in publuc domain, if the claim of this article is correct (the claim that the 1992 law was the first Emirati copyright law).

The 1992 law does not seem to protect works made before 1992 (or so I thought, I may be wrong though).

Ping @ZI Jony: who is the current organizer of the Emirati leg of the WLM-2024 ed.. Ping also peeps who are already familiar on FoP-related discussions @Clindberg, Paradise Chronicle, Rosenzweig, and Adamant1: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, but I did notice that the 1992 law mentioned The Federal Law No. (15) of 1980 regarding the publishing, and the laws amending thereof. That 1980 law might have been a copyright/intellectual property law. Or not, I don't know. --Rosenzweig τ 06:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig I removed the mention of it at the CRT page because it does not mention anything related to copyright. One English text is provided by a government ministry of UAE (the English text). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig from the English text, the 1980 law only controls things that are legally allowed to be published or not, as one privilege granted for UAE persons who want to operate a printing press or media outfit. It outlines rules for those who desire to open such media enterprises, and some penalties if those enterprises fail to comply. It does not mention anything that resembles intellectual property or copyright, so it is not-related to copyright and not relevant for Commons' purposes. We do not serve as an information agency or a media outfit, but just a media repository resembling a stock media website (similar to Flickr, Pexels, or Unsplash). English Wikipedia may need to consider such rules (considering they may be using content generated from UAE sources in cited article passages), but their default rule is only to apply more liberal U.S. laws on information dissemination and not laws of other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2014 research work on IP and technology laws of Australia and UAE (for comparison) also lists the 1992 copyright law (stated as 1993 law) as the first-listed intellectual property law of the emirates. Although the article mentions until 1972, UAE was a British protectorate known as "Trucial States". I can assume that when these emirates became independent, any laws from the United Kingdom (like the w:en:Copyright Act 1911) became non-binding, but it is only my assumption, and that more research is needed. Curiously, the 1992 copyright law of UAE did not mention the repeal of the 1911 Act (but it may be due to the non-application of the 1911 Act when the Trucial States separated from the British Empire), so perhaps there was no copyright law in the emirates from 70s up to 1992 (so all Emirati works made during this time were unprotected)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding, British copyright laws do not usually extend automatically even to Crown dependencies, let alone trucial states. For instance, it required a separate order in council to make British copyright law applicable to the Cayman Islands. I think the key question is whether the 1992 law was indeed non-retroactive. Felix QW (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the 2002 law is retroactive, as we claim at COM:UAE, then the questions around the 1992 law are only relevant for URAA purposes, right? Felix QW (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW: the 1992 law does not mention the repeal of a prior legislation (indicating no copyright law existed in the UAE up to at least March 1993 (the final article states the law became effective 6 months after its publication; it was issued on September 28, 1992). The law does not state previously-unprotected artistic works and architecture gain copyright by virtue of it. Per the final and general provisions of the 2002 law:

Article (48)
The Federal law No. (40) of 1992 referred to hereinabove, and any other provision contradicting the provisions hereof herein shall be abrogated.
Article (49)
Applicable regulations and decisions shall remain in effect in as far as they do not contradict the provisions of this Law, until the coming into force of the regulation and decisions issued in implementation thereof.

However, Article 3(3) of the same 2002 law states works that have fallen into public domain are not protected; this clarifies some things. Public domain works remain in public domain and copyrights are not restored. Inferring from these, we may say that UAE works, including UAE buildings, made or published up to the end of 1992 remain out of copyright. The URAA date for U.S. copyright on UAE works is 1996 as per w:en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, another possibility is that even if Britain did guaranteed protection on the Trucial States courtesy of several treaties, notably the 1820 treaty and the 1853 truce which established protectorate over the formerly-seven sheikhdoms, these treaties probably did not extend the laws of the United Kingdom to the Trucial States. The treaties were more of guarantees for Trucial States that Britain would protect them, in exchange for not making hostile actions against Britain and giving clearances to British vessels to be docked at their ports. Most of the other provisions relate to foreign affairs/diplomacy, like these states should not necessarily allow foreign states to establish diplomatic ties with them without London's approval. I cannot find any indication that U.K. laws were extended to the Trucial States; if so, the 1911 Copyright Act may had preemptively protected all UAE buildings built between 1911 and 1992 (50 year term from completion since none of the buildings, like Jumeirah Mosque, had named architects or designers). Nevertheless, the most-likely scenario is that all pre-1993 architecture in UAE are in public domain by default. But, everyone is free to contest my interpretation. Ping again @ZI Jony, Rosenzweig, Clindberg, Adamant1, and Paradise Chronicle: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also ping users who are involved in FoP things: @Jameslwoodward, Aymatth2, and A.Savin: .

And finally, UAE became a Berne member in 2004 (as per w:en:List of parties to international copyright agreements#Table of parties). Berne Convention is the only copyright agreement the country joined, so it is more reasonable to assume that UAE did not grant any protection to their works made before 1993, including buildings like this. If no one opposes after a week, then I may request the undeletion of all images of this mosque. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ping two users who interacted at Commons talk:UAE in Lens Competition: @Ziank-photography and Alexandermcnabb: if they have some insights on this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the ping. The 1980 law was indeed the publishing law and had no direct clause regarding copyright (the closest we get is "Newspapers or periodicals shall not publish articles, novels, stories or any other literary work unless with consent of their author.") - a copy of that law as published is available here. To clear up the question of law under the British, at no time did British law apply to the Trucial States (pre-1971). The interpretation that there was no effective copyright law in place prior 1992 is correct. Federal law 40 of 1992 specifically protects architectural drawings - article 2 - but affords no protection against imaging architectural works - as, indeed, does the new copyright law of 2021 - article 22 applies. However, there is no specific allowance to grant 'freedom of panorama' in either of those laws - just protection of the drawings and form of the construction against copying the whole. So basically pre-1992 is copyright free and post-1992 has no prohibition on photography or distribution of images but neither does it specifically grant freedom of panorama. If that helps! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details! I am really struggling to parse Art. 22 #1 b) but I suspect that might be the English translation.

Taken literally, it seems to say that

the author cannot prevent single copies to be made for personal use, unless it is an architectural work in a public place.

The double negative (exception of an exception) seems to imply that for such works, not even single personal copies are allowed, but that seems rather absurd to me.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak any Arabic whatsoever, but surely this clause must be relevant somehow for determining whether there id freedom of panorama or not?? Felix QW (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW@Alexandermcnabb see the WIPO Lex link to the English translation of the 1992 law I provided above. The English translation is somehow reliable IMO. The limitations to copyright were found in articles 14 to 17. A closest provision is at Article 15, but very limited to reporting of current events: It shall be permitted to reproduce any work of art which can be watched or listened to during the presentation of current events or to publicize it by photographic or television filming or any means of the mass media, provided the same should be in the limit of the information objective aimed at, with reference to the name of the author. So not suitable. FoP provision must be explicitly indicated as "copyright laws are statutory rights", and provisions like FoP cannot be magically made into existence through legal opinions without backing law (that is, according to w:en:Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in a Zoom webinar meeting with several Filipino Wikipedians on February 10, 2021 regarding the absence of FoP in the Philippines). Anyway, this is not the main focus of the topic. The focus is if UAE buildings completed before 1993 are actually in public domain or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can consider prior 1992 is public domain - buildings, stamps, recordings. There is no effective law in force prior that date - and most certainly not under the British protectorate prior to the Federal government taking over on 2 December 1971. The translation of the 1992 law that @Felix QW mentions is problematic - an Emirati colleague confirms the translation: the law treats the drawings of a building or the building as a whole to be copyright - ie: you cannot copy another architect's building rather than referring to freedom to make an image of the building. As you point out, there is no specific FoP provision in current UAE law, but I do have to note the law does not at any time make any consideration of an image of a building in a public place being derivative - it merely prohibits wholesale copying of the building itself. Make of that what you will! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote on stamps, the 'Dunes' issues of Trucial State stamps made by US entrepreneur Finbar Kenny were issued under license - he may well have been covered by US copyright law if his company was registered in the US. It's sort of moot, 'cos they're all over 50 years old now anyway... They may possibly have been commercial agreements made in breach of the 1892 Exclusive Agreement, but that needs a deal more research that anyone in their right minds would forego the pleasure of undertaking... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb with regards to stamps, you may want to respond to Senator2029's thread at the top.

Re: 1992 law's stance on FoP. Yeah, the former law did not provide a specific clause regarding free uses of images of copyrighted buildings or even sculptures. Still, the copyright laws do not operate in a "what is not written in the law is allowed" basis. No mention is worse than having a non-commercial type FoP; lack of mention means almost all types of uses, except those provided, are not allowed. 1992 law only mentions several exceptions that may be of relevance in the context of copyrighted works in public spaces – private use of images in close family circles, the aforementioned current events reporting use etc.. All of those exceptions are not compatible, unfortunately.

I will wait for further comments from other users regarding pre-1993 UAE artworks and buildings, before taking actions like requesting undeletion of images of the 1979 Jumeirah Mosque. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, I consider pre-1993, not pre-1992. The 1992 law only took effect the next year; it was issued in September 1992, but its final clause stated it would become effective 6 months after publication in their official publication or gazette of some sort. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the liberty to post it here (as I don't want to unnecessarily "pollute" the pristine, unused condition of the discussion page for COM:Kuwait).

It does appear that Kuwait had no copyright law before the enactment of their 1999 copyright law. According to El-quqa, "copyright protection in Kuwait was virtually nonexistent until 1999 and it wasn’t until 2014 that Kuwait signed onto the Berne Convention." Similar situation to the UAE(?) Someone should check the 1999 Kuwaiti law (WIPO Lex-hosted English translation), if the law was retroactive or not. Note that in the translation, artistic works are mistranslated as "literary works". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A curious provision (Article 44) in the 1999 Kuwaiti law states: "The provisions of this law shall be effective as to works referred to in the previous article existing in the operative date. Provided that concerning the calculation of the period of protection of these works, the lapsed period should be included, from the date of incident specifying the start of period effectiveness till the date of operating this law. The provisions of this law shall be effective as to all incidents and the following contracts of its effective date, once the same is related to works published or shown or represented before that concerning contracts made before the effectiveness of this law, its provisions are not effective, rather, the same remain subject to legal provision which were effective at the time of its completion." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]