An additional condition regarding Shaykh Ibn Baz’s fatwa on the issue of copyright, which was not mentioned previously, namely that copyright is retained for the first edition only, not for the other editions.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Al-Huwaini: Regarding the question you asked yesterday about copyright and the opinion ofThe Shaykh : 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz, I forgot a detail in the fatwa,The Shaykh : which is that it is permissible to take a right on the first edition, and this corresponds to your work, effort, and toil. He says, as for the other editions, you have already taken payment for your effort, so it is not permissible to take a right on the other editions. He says...
The Shaykh : In my opinion, this is a purely formal issue. First, there is this matter, and second, there is another matter: whether others may benefit from the first person’s effort? And this has been discussed previously. As for this issue being a formal one, it is an agreement between the author and the publisher. As it is said regarding the publisher’s right to take a fee or compensation for his second edition, or whether it is not permissible; what is said in that case applies to the author who worked on the book in terms of authorship and verification, and so on. I mean by “formal issue” that it is possible, and this happens often as you know, when the publisher wants to own the right of publication, he pays the owner of the right, who is the author or the commentator or the verifier, more than he would pay him if he did not give him the right of publication. This is clear, of course, for you. Do you see that the one who says it is not permissible for him, if he accepts the permissibility of the initial taking, cannot control and tell him to take one percent, two, three, five, ten, twenty, and so on? So what is the difference in that case between taking this right in one lump sum and taking it in installments? There is no difference in that. Therefore, I say that this distinction is a formal issue that has no relation to the religious ruling of permissibility or impermissibility. Because believers are bound by their conditions and by what they agree upon. This is my view regarding this condition that you added to the previous question.
Al-Huwaini: And there is another condition: if I bought a book, any book, for example, from the books ofThe Shaykh : then this is a valid purchase, so it is permissible for me to sell it. And this is not valid because the book has become my property. So if I sold it in some way, there is nothing wrong with that.
The Shaykh : And I say there is nothing wrong with it; but this does not constitute encroachment, because he bought it through a lawful means, but he did not buy it with the right of copyright. So the matter is clear, meaning he owned the benefit of this book, but he did not own the benefit of the copies that can be printed from this book.
Al-Huwaini: Meaning the sale was for the copy that he bought.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : In my opinion, this is a purely formal issue. First, there is this matter, and second, there is another matter: whether others may benefit from the first person’s effort? And this has been discussed previously. As for this issue being a formal one, it is an agreement between the author and the publisher. As it is said regarding the publisher’s right to take a fee or compensation for his second edition, or whether it is not permissible; what is said in that case applies to the author who worked on the book in terms of authorship and verification, and so on. I mean by “formal issue” that it is possible, and this happens often as you know, when the publisher wants to own the right of publication, he pays the owner of the right, who is the author or the commentator or the verifier, more than he would pay him if he did not give him the right of publication. This is clear, of course, for you. Do you see that the one who says it is not permissible for him, if he accepts the permissibility of the initial taking, cannot control and tell him to take one percent, two, three, five, ten, twenty, and so on? So what is the difference in that case between taking this right in one lump sum and taking it in installments? There is no difference in that. Therefore, I say that this distinction is a formal issue that has no relation to the religious ruling of permissibility or impermissibility. Because believers are bound by their conditions and by what they agree upon. This is my view regarding this condition that you added to the previous question.
Al-Huwaini: And there is another condition: if I bought a book, any book, for example, from the books ofThe Shaykh : then this is a valid purchase, so it is permissible for me to sell it. And this is not valid because the book has become my property. So if I sold it in some way, there is nothing wrong with that.
The Shaykh : And I say there is nothing wrong with it; but this does not constitute encroachment, because he bought it through a lawful means, but he did not buy it with the right of copyright. So the matter is clear, meaning he owned the benefit of this book, but he did not own the benefit of the copies that can be printed from this book.
Al-Huwaini: Meaning the sale was for the copy that he bought.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.