The fee for the unlimitted right of reproduction has a maximun cost to 250 USD per orignal image... altough if you get a layer involve, it would cost 10 times more.
With this, they will have the right to put "autorized by the INAH" and a serial number.
This woul allow them to charge more for the mugs, and the fee would hardly impact in the cost
UNfortunatelly the news about thisproblem are mainly gibberish...
Probably the newpaper "excelsior" did sell more copies, but i doubt the recieve anything else.
The amount involved is actually very low, and Starbuck already agree to sign it.
the core of the problem is that Starbucks did not receive the permision, (the claim to ask for it since 2008) so they decided to continue withouth it...
Burocracy or maybe someone did not like how it was going to be use... but at the end they did it knowing it was not right.
All this has received a ridiculous amount of publicity... that has nothing to do with the actual problem.
El meollo del asunto está en la definición que se haga de esta reproducción. Si se trata de una reproducción de monumentos artísticos con fines comerciales, de conformidad con el artículo 288-B fracción I, de la Ley Federal de Derechos, por la reproducción fotográfica, dibujo o ilustración Starbucks tendría que pagar $1,342.62 por pieza. El artículo 33 de la Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos señala que son monumentos artísticos los bienes muebles o inmuebles que revisten un valor estético relevante.
Si se considera que la reproducción es de monumentos arqueológicos o históricos, se pagarán por concepto de derechos sin límites de reproducciones: $1,477.07 si es una reproducción fiel o $2,954.50 si es una reproducción libre
So the right to use the images, without limit of reproduction is a maximum of 2,954 mexian pesos per images... or about twenty cups of coffe...
it is the "La Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos"
(federal law for monuments and archeological , artistics and historic sites)
It has the purpose of protect the national heritage. And what it is asking is a fee for taking the photographs for comercial use, stating what use would you give to it.
It is no very high, and nowhere it goe to the amount if it were a copyright...
While Starbucks claimed the INAH had not gave them permision, i guess they did not made the correct way. the permision should not take more than five days.
And if should cost form 100 to 250$ per image (for comercial use). For private of fair use, you do not need to pay.
if you cant call champagne, then it is not champagne (for the consumer...).... is just another foaming wine.
And it is not copyright. The law.involved is about the use of the cultural heritage of Mexico, and it was created to protect the monuments and archeologial sites. It includes every monument, archeolgical site and object that is declared protected by the INAH (national institute of antropology and history). So it can include prehispanic site, and modern sites, if the late have been declared protected.
It is a fee for taking a profesional photo for comercial purpouses, in most museums in the worl if you want to use a profesional camera and want to use theimage for comercial purposes you will have to pay a fee.
It is not about copyright... but to protect the national heritage.
The fee is actually for actually take the photograph of historical monuments, and protect its use.
Al historical an archeological sites are considered "property of the nation".
We have seen so many treasure stolen that we are trying to protect what it left.
And is actually low. For a comercial proyect like the coffe mugs, i would go about 250 $ per image. It is nothing close to what it would be charged if actually were copyright.
Starbucks has to pay the astronomical amount of $1,477.07 to $2,954.50 mexican pesos.. (about 200 us dolar) per image...
I think that amount can be recolected by a single starbuck in a couple of hours...
Of course starbuck are willing to pay, even if they not use the images.. And probably they would change the agency that sold them the images.
but the real problems seems that people in the INAH were not willing to grant use of the images..., and the news were exagerated by some nationalist characters...
Champagne is a special trademark. It can only be used for wines made in the region of Champagne...France... if you try to sell and identical wine, but made in California, you will be sued for trademark violation
the same goes for Tequila. You can only name "tequila" to a kind of mezcal made in the distric of Tequila, Mexico...Otherwise you will be sued for trademark violation.
The fee is required for the comercial use of any building of historical artifacts that falls under the juridiction of the Archeological and historical agency of the goverment.
if you go to a museum, some make a small charge for taking photographs.... and some do not allow any photograhs withuth permition of the owners...
is not very different...
Acording to the aztec, their Tlatoani Ahuizotl, persoally killed 84,400 prisioners in four days using a stone knife...
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...
In México, the use of historical images (from buildings, archeolgical artifacts, sculpture or paintints) requires permision from the INAH (national institute of antropology and history)..
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.
Slashdot Mirror
With this, they will have the right to put "autorized by the INAH" and a serial number.
This woul allow them to charge more for the mugs, and the fee would hardly impact in the cost
UNfortunatelly the news about thisproblem are mainly gibberish...
probalby we already have developed a... darwinian adaptation...
All this has received a ridiculous amount of publicity... that has nothing to do with the actual problem.
El meollo del asunto está en la definición que se haga de esta reproducción. Si se trata de una reproducción de monumentos artísticos con fines comerciales, de conformidad con el artículo 288-B fracción I, de la Ley Federal de Derechos, por la reproducción fotográfica, dibujo o ilustración Starbucks tendría que pagar $1,342.62 por pieza. El artículo 33 de la Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos señala que son monumentos artísticos los bienes muebles o inmuebles que revisten un valor estético relevante.
Si se considera que la reproducción es de monumentos arqueológicos o históricos, se pagarán por concepto de derechos sin límites de reproducciones: $1,477.07 si es una reproducción fiel o $2,954.50 si es una reproducción libre
So the right to use the images, without limit of reproduction is a maximum of 2,954 mexian pesos per images... or about twenty cups of coffe...
http://www.cnmh.inah.gob.mx/ponencias/630.html
it is the "La Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos"
(federal law for monuments and archeological , artistics and historic sites)
It has the purpose of protect the national heritage. And what it is asking is a fee for taking the photographs for comercial use, stating what use would you give to it. It is no very high, and nowhere it goe to the amount if it were a copyright...
While Starbucks claimed the INAH had not gave them permision, i guess they did not made the correct way. the permision should not take more than five days. And if should cost form 100 to 250$ per image (for comercial use). For private of fair use, you do not need to pay.
And it is not copyright. The law.involved is about the use of the cultural heritage of Mexico, and it was created to protect the monuments and archeologial sites. It includes every monument, archeolgical site and object that is declared protected by the INAH (national institute of antropology and history). So it can include prehispanic site, and modern sites, if the late have been declared protected.
It is a fee for taking a profesional photo for comercial purpouses, in most museums in the worl if you want to use a profesional camera and want to use theimage for comercial purposes you will have to pay a fee.
The amount is actually very low.
The fee is actually for actually take the photograph of historical monuments, and protect its use.
Al historical an archeological sites are considered "property of the nation".
We have seen so many treasure stolen that we are trying to protect what it left.
And is actually low. For a comercial proyect like the coffe mugs, i would go about 250 $ per image. It is nothing close to what it would be charged if actually were copyright.
Each day about 10.000 us citizens come Mexico to pay for cheaper medicines than in the US... i think that would compensate...
actually it would be cheaper to pay the fee.. it goes about 200 US per image....
But i think a Starbuck mug which you ahve to pay, does not cover "fair use"...
Currently i am making a documentary , and i already have asked permision. It is fairly cheap.. but needs some patience...
Starbucks has to pay the astronomical amount of $1,477.07 to $2,954.50 mexican pesos.. (about 200 us dolar) per image...
I think that amount can be recolected by a single starbuck in a couple of hours...
Of course starbuck are willing to pay, even if they not use the images.. And probably they would change the agency that sold them the images.
but the real problems seems that people in the INAH were not willing to grant use of the images..., and the news were exagerated by some nationalist characters...
i read somwhere that that the monastery owner of the oldest surviving coyp of the bible ( http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ ) is asking for a fee...
They should have known... after all, Starbucks payed to the agency...that payment should have included the fee for the commercial use of the images...
you can think more in ther line of trademark... the fee is required to control and conservation the use of historical monuments...
Champagne is a special trademark. It can only be used for wines made in the region of Champagne...France... if you try to sell and identical wine, but made in California, you will be sued for trademark violation
the same goes for Tequila. You can only name "tequila" to a kind of mezcal made in the distric of Tequila, Mexico...Otherwise you will be sued for trademark violation.
Mainly.... National Geographic, The history channel, and of course... the catholic church...
The fee is required for the comercial use of any building of historical artifacts that falls under the juridiction of the Archeological and historical agency of the goverment.
http://dti.inah.gob.mx/
In this case, some of the images were from the monument to the independence and the "Palacio de bellas artes" that were built around 1910.
If the momument has not been declared a national site, there is no fee.
The permision is not very dificult, and is only required for comercial proyects:
http://www.cofemertramites.gob.mx/intranet/co_dialog_PublishedTramite.asp?coNodes=1190358&num_modalidad=3
In the link there is the e-mail of the people in charge of this.
sorry.. forgot... the Tlaxcalans were nahuatl...
if you go to a museum, some make a small charge for taking photographs.... and some do not allow any photograhs withuth permition of the owners... is not very different...
All them are consideres historical monuments, and the images, property of the nation.
Mexico only charges it the picture is used for comercial purposes. The people that sold the images to Starbuck should have known...
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...
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/