Slashdot Mirror
Mexico Wants Payment For Aztec Images
innocent_white_lamb writes "Starbucks brought out a line of cups with prehistoric Aztec images on them. Now the government of Mexico wants them to pay for the use of the images. Does the copyright on an image last hundreds of years?"
Surely they could have included a picture of the offending cups...
This is Mexico though. They're not run like civilized countries in the rest of the world ... so if Starbucks wants to do business there, they'll have to play by the rules. And, knowing Mexico, Starbucks' problems can all go away if they grease the right palms.
You'll note he said "play by the rules", with no mention of the laws. Bring money.
IIRC certain countries or people demand that their "culture" must not be exploited without their consent. I.e. not without paying for it.
I don't think it's just "simple" copyright they're going to field, they're going to insist that the culture of a country belongs to that country and isn't just public property.
Which should be interesting if it sticks. Egypt demanding compensation for every mummy movie, Italy demanding compensation for every time someone does a gladiator movie, Russia demanding compensation for every dystopian totalitarian novel and Israel demanding compensation for every Bible.
I somehow almost wish they get away with it. It should be insanely hilarious.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In most countries which have copyright laws it extends only 50 or so years after the author dies.
Not only that, but it's up to the copyright owner themselves to make the complaint. How on earth does a government "inherit" copyright just because the original owner was from their country? That's like the British government suing anyone who does things based on William Shakespeare because he was English.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
What...
That's crazy. I can sort of understand wanting compensation for something your government created, to recompense taxpayer expense... but to ask recompense for an artistic STYLE your nation was built upon the dead remains of is WAY beyond my usual expectations of baseless money-grabbing.
If there was a copyright on the creation, it has expired. By a few thousand years. There is certainly no derivative works clause you can pull out at this point.
Even if you want to stake some claim on government effort in excavation, the only efforts you can claim ownership of would be individual performances/creations you have based on the original works - anyone else can just base their works on the original and avoid any derivative claims.
Still, my guess is that this isn't really about making a serious claim - it's about getting settlements - about casting nets and seeing what comes back. The governmental version of SCO-style license trolling.
Ryan Fenton
Starbuck's work is likely either a photograph, or a work derived
from a photograph. The photo is likely copyrighted, or restricted.
When you visit an architelogical site, your personal photos are
for personal use only -- not commercial reproduction accoring to
the law of Mexico. It's been this way for quite some time (70's?).
When you do apply for reproduction rights, it's usually limited
to specific publications with a nominal fee per object represented.
These laws were put in place quite early, perhaps before the 60's.
So, it's possible it's an artist's rendition (not derived from photo)
or it is based on a representation from before the antiquity laws
were passed -- however, unlikely. So, it's extremely possible that
copyright is the vehicle for enforcement.
Of course, the Mexican government is going to be sure and give that money to the indiginous tribes, the descendants of the original artists, right?
Most people estimate Mexico's population to be at least 60% mestizo (mixed blood indigenous + European). Wikipedia puts it at 60%-80%. Indigenous people make up ~15%, with the remainder European / Asian / African. Since the Mexican census doesn't count ethnicity, no one knows for sure just how many are mestizo; but either way it's not correct that the culture or government is 'European' run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mexico
This means that actually the majority of people in Mexico have lineage that married/raped the indigenous population (depending on who you talk to).
Also, the majority of "pure" Europeans living in Mexico arrived after the Spanish occupation ended (can't find citation for that at the moment, sorry).
I know it's 'cool' to rag on Mexico, but at least pick something accurate (there's a lot to choose from).
This is the USA though. They're not run like civilized countries in the rest of the world ... so if Starbucks wants to do business there, they'll have to play by the rules. And, knowing USA, Starbucks' problems can all go away if they grease the right palms.
What country can this not apply to?
signature is pants
The RIAA's behavior demonstrates that copyright has nothing to do with remunerating the original authors.
I hate printers.
Civilized countries invade other countries based on blatant lies, kill thousands of people, imprison people without trial in places that they acquired by force from weaker countries.
Shall I continue?
Nope, unnecessary.
I have many other examples of countries that call themselves "civilized" who are partners of Mexico in the G20 or the OECD, but it would be as pointless as not considering Mexico a civilized place (as a matter of fact there is no country that is not civilized strictly speaking, since all human groups produce a civilization of some kind or another).
Oh wait, the PP was an AC's. Never mind.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
***But i think a Starbuck mug which you have to pay, does not cover "fair use"...***
That's correct, I think. However, the issue here is not fair use, but public domain. Unlike trademarks, there is supposed to be a time limit on Copyrights. If these are recent "Aztec style" images, then they may well be copyrighted. If they are images actually drawn by the Aztecs then there seems little reason to treat them as protected ... outside Mexico anyway.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
The RIAA's behavior demonstrates that copyright has nothing to do with remunerating the original authors.
Nothing much new here. The original copyright laws, more than a thousand years back, dealt with copying by scribes, and the authors of the documents (the Bible, Koran, etc) had been dead for centuries.
Copyright has always been about control of sales, to limit the profit to a small number of officially-approved publishers. The main difference is that now, the approved publishers are determined by the owner of the copyright, which is a commodity that's for sale. In the original copyright, the legal publisher of sacred works was determined by the people in power (the king or prince or bishop or whoever), and presumably chosen mostly on the basis of bribes and kickbacks.
Come to think of it, that's not so different than how the modern copyright laws are being made right now. We just say "campaign contributions" rather than "bribes and kickbacks".
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.