Mexico Wants Payment For Aztec Images 325
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?"
Actually (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Informative)
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 [washingtonexaminer.com]
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.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly, he meant something else.
Property of the nation. (Score:5, Informative)
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 [cofemer.gob.mx]
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/ [inah.gob.mx]
Re:Did the Aztec have a concept of copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Zero was invented in India (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, IIRC the Arabic number system had it's origin in India. There was an excellent BBC program [open2.net] on the history of mathematics which showed some early examples.
what is really about? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cnmh.inah.gob.mx/ponencias/630.html [inah.gob.mx]
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.
Re:Copyright or "cultural heritage"? (Score:3, Informative)
That's going to come as news to Mumm, as their Cuvee Napa is going to have some problems. There are endless `methode champagnoise' wines made, in California, New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere. You just can't call them champagne. Similarly, you can't call US-style whiskies Bourbon unless they're made in Bourbon (much to Jack Daniels' rue), Scotch-style whiskies Scotch unless they're made in Scotland (much to Suntory's rue) and so on. This isn't trademark law, but it's enforced through a complex web of agreements over national and regional origin.
Re:Property of the nation. (Score:2, Informative)
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...
Re:Property of the nation. (Score:2, Informative)
I
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Different Ideas of Intellectual Property (Score:5, Informative)