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...
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!
The Boston Bruins are gonna have to accept a buy out by the Red Army in order to settle their debts.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Actually, the article clarifies that these images are from the pre-Aztec ruins of Teotihuacan, which would make them at least 1,000 years old.
(or so I heard)
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
Walt Disney would be proud.
That's like the British government suing anyone who does things based on William Shakespeare because he was English.
Or for something even more absurd: the modern British government, which is descended from a system put in place by the Normans, suing someone who uses imagery from Beowulf.
Mexico is run by a culture and people primarily descended from the people who killed off the Aztecs. Yes, there are plenty of Indians in Mexico today, but they're pretty much at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. The Mexican government is the heir of the Spanish Empire.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The real trouble happened when tried to put 2 Aztecs in 1 Cup. Associated a whole new twist to the taste of their coffee.
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.
FTA: "The government archaeological agency said Wednesday it will decide by next week whether Starbucks should pay any fees. "
Has anyone thought yet to ask where the images came from? It seems obvious to me that what could have happened was that Starbucks took photographs taken by the government archaeological society, which the society may have used for post-cards, t-shirts, or other tourism items and placed them on Starbucks mugs without paying fees to the Mexican government for those photographs.
Those photographs would then be copyright, just as any photograph would.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
The article was light on significant details. It looks as if these images are used effectively as trademarks in Mexico, used for purposes of tourism, or some such thing. This is obviously not a copyright issue.
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?
What's next? We're going to have to pay the Italians for using Roman letters and the Saudi's for using Arabic numbers? Ridiculous!
Has anyone thought yet to ask where the images came from? It seems obvious to me that what could have happened was that Starbucks took photographs taken by the government archaeological society, which the society may have used for post-cards, t-shirts, or other tourism items and placed them on Starbucks mugs without paying fees to the Mexican government for those photographs.
I tried to search around the web a bit, but the only thing I found was this quote from the Washington Examiner
Mexico's government archaeological agency says the images of the Aztec calendar stone and the Pyramid of the Moon from the pre-Aztec ruins of Teotihuacan are the intellectual property of the nation. The agency will decide how much Starbucks should pay.
Which seems to imply, to my mind, that this isn't the matter of specific photographs being copied, but rather that the Mexican government considers any photographs of these artefacts/sites to be the intellectual property of Mexico.
That being said I have yet to find any site or news provider, that referees to this case in more detail; so I shall hold my judgement until then.
The Long Now Foundation
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
"if they grease the right palms"
Clearly, he meant something else.
This is contemplated in the federal law about Monuments and Archeological, artistics, and historic sites. It is not exactly a question of copyright, but those images are considered "property of the nation".
Ussually the fees are not very high, but depends on the use of the images. Since this was part of a comercial product, the INAH has to autorize its use, and charge a fee, used for conservation of the monuments. The problem is that the design company that sold the images to starbuck should have request permision to the INAH first. There are no penalties involved.
The permisions can be requested here:
http://www.cofemer.gob.mx/BuscadorTramites/BuscadorGeneralHomoclave.asp?SIGLASDEPENDENCIA=INAH&accion=Buscando
If you took a photograph nad use it for personal or divulgation, there is no problem, but if you used them for a comercial purpose you need permision.
http://dti.inah.gob.mx/
The RIAA's behavior demonstrates that copyright has nothing to do with remunerating the original authors.
I hate printers.
However, most experts consider these numbers to be overstated. For example, the sheer logistics associated with sacrificing 84,000 victims would be overwhelming, mos historia asume the aztec put a few extra zeroes as propaganda...
the arqueological excavation have revelead a few hundred sacrifices, far from the thousands claimed...
by comparition, in Auswtiz with their four gass chambers wrking 24 a day, they could execute about 4,000 prisioners a day...
The Tlaxcaltecas also killed and sacrifice Aztecs... Theyre power was very similar, it required only a small force to push de balance... that force was Cortez.
At the end, germs killed much more aztecs and Tlaxcaltecas than the war.
Trivia. The aztecs.... called themsleves meshicas... their gods had forbiten to call themselves aztecs...
Actually, IIRC the Arabic number system had it's origin in India. There was an excellent BBC program on the history of mathematics which showed some early examples.
National iconography should be protected from redefinition, abuse and from corporate marketing departments.
This being said, I am still waiting when I can publish my, adult only, Mickey Mouse movie : "On Santa's knees".
That's like the British government suing anyone who does things based on William Shakespeare because he was English.
Please stop giving them ideas, they are bad enough already.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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.
http://www.cnmh.inah.gob.mx/ponencias/630.html
it is the "La Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos"
(federal law for monuments and archeological , artistics and historic sites)
It has the purpose of protect the national heritage. And what it is asking is a fee for taking the photographs for comercial use, stating what use would you give to it. It is no very high, and nowhere it goe to the amount if it were a copyright...
While Starbucks claimed the INAH had not gave them permision, i guess they did not made the correct way. the permision should not take more than five days. And if should cost form 100 to 250$ per image (for comercial use). For private of fair use, you do not need to pay.
Acording to the aztec, their Tlatoani Ahuizotl, persoally killed 84,400 prisioners in four days using a stone knife...
For copyright violations? Harsh...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
***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
Mexico is run by a culture and people primarily descended from the people who killed off the Aztecs. Yes, there are plenty of Indians in Mexico today, but they're pretty much at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. The Mexican government is the heir of the Spanish Empire.
Uh, no. It's not that simple.
First off, "Aztec" is a broad and external moniker generally given to the empire dominated by the Mexica, a specific tribe. Scholars these days tend to refer to the people of Mexico widely as Nahuas, that is, people who speak Nahuatl. With that in mind, descent should not be considered simply from the Mexica, because many of the people who still exhibit a strongly indigenous culture are non-Mexica Nahuas.
Second, nobody killed off the Aztecs. That's purely a myth. Yes, many were killed, but they didn't just all die. They had children, and the children had children, etc. Through intermarriage, fornication, or rape, the Spaniards and the Nahua mixed. This process was is called mestizaje. Hence a monument in Mexico city marking a key battle reads, "Neither a victory or a defeat, but the painful birth of a mestizo people." The intention of the Spaniards had surely been to completely erase and replace Nahua culture, but they didn't succeed; they couldn't succeed. In such an encounter there tends to be some continuance with what came before, especially inasmuch as the culture before had some connections with the conquering culture that helped the new culture to take root. Mexicans today are not purely Spanish. We don't just fit-in in Spain. The irony is that the cultures that still carry on many indigenous practices, likewise, are not purely indigenous, but they often have taken on many traits from the Spaniards but apparently preserved more traditional elements than the majority of the conquered. Mexico is not as simple as saying that the Spaniards conquered, killed, and replaced; really it's more of a complex, evolutionary situation, where both sides formed something new.
Of course, some troll will probably insist that there's no native culture remaining because most don't speak Nahuatl and don't worship the sun or use the calendar, but it's not as simple as that. I recommend reading Louise Burkhart's The Slippery Earth, Viviana Diaz Balsera's The Pyramid Under the Cross, or pretty much anything by Jaime Lara.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
... However, the Vedic knowledge was in its day a library about every type of field, including manuals on how to pilot aircrafts and make the fuel. However, the records are sadly too obtuse / derived orally from other sources, so are not really practical in its present shape. However, just the fact they have these records, signify this is not the first time earth have had technically advanced civilisations, even though the original records about them have been lost...
The fundamental problem was that India out sourced all its tech support to the Arabs and manufacturing to the Greeks in those Vedic times and switched from manufacturing economy to service economy. Thus it eventually lost its technological edge and then its military edge and then eventually petered out. All it had left was those manuals.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
One thing to take note is that Mexico has different ideas concerning intellectual property. The national emblem for example is ruled by a strict code that does not let allow it to be reproduced for anything other than governmental/national use. The Mexican flag, is similarly protected, it cannot be printed on shirts, or underwear or on guitars like the American flag can. I am not a specialist, but taking these to cases' examples I can imagine a similar train of thought that might lead to protection not necessarily a copyright or I.P. law that restricts the use of such national emblems. Mexican identity is deeply rooted in both catholic(Spanish) and native traditions, national symbols are not so easy to define.
While your experience with Starbucks is apparently different than mine, I fail to see how a company that pays more than minimum wage for essentially minimum wage work ... that also offers benefits (for actual Starbucks owned stores) to all employees after only a few months employment, is "evil" because it "underpays" its workers. Or are you talking about a different company?
I'm sorry Mexico, your copyright expired in 1492.
"first.. he was iliterate... how an iliterate people can count up to 100,000"
duh, pretty easily. 1, two, seven, capital A, smiley face, beer, dragonfly, 100,000.
Counting's not rocket surgery.