Mexican Gov't Says Starbucks Can't Use Images Of Mexican Artifacts On Mugs... Without Paying Up
from the who-owns-your-culture? dept
Apparently, the Mexican government believes it owns its pre-Hispanic culture. Michael Scott points us to a story about how the Mexican government claims it "owns" the intellectual property on various pre-Hispanic artifacts, which Starbucks was using as imagery on mugs. Specifically, it's upset about images of an Aztec stone calendar and the Pyramid of the Moon from Teotihuacan. I've heard that some countries believe they can automatically claim total "intellectual property" control over certain artifacts, but it's difficult to see what claim Mexico would have under any ordinary intellectual property law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: artifacts, intellectual property, mexico
Companies: starbucks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the Olympic Committee can have draconian trademarks "protecting" a Greek sporting event which has occurred sporadically since 776 BC, I think anything is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infinity minus a day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Infinity minus a day
Hmmmmm, who is the attorney who will take them to court on December 13, 2012?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question.
Either way it's silly, but trademark would make it slightly less silly. Also, if I've made some logic error that renders my entire question null, straighten me out. (It happens a lot on Fridays)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question.
Still silly, don't get me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What A Supprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What A Supprise
Sounds like the U.S. to me. In fact, I would argue that the Native Americans were much better off until the foreigners came along and destroyed them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What A Supprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What A Supprise
I know America could be doing A LOT better but America does give considerable amount of aid to other countries while the Chinese and Russians sell weapons by the boat load to developing nation's warlords so they can keep killing each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What A Supprise
Well, they weren't perfect, but when people started migrating to America they really oppressed the natives big time. Just look at the history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What A Supprise
I find the notion that America is innocent and right and everyone else is guilty and wrong hard to believe. The (U.S.) media may portray America as this perfect nation that often doesn't act out of selfishness but I'm not buying it. Just like any other country America acts in its own best interest, it doesn't act in the best interest of others, and there is probably a lot of harm that America does to other countries that doesn't ever make it on our broken mainstream media (some of which makes it on the Internet).
For instance watch the movie American drug war. Did you know that Afghanistan didn't have a heroin (export) problem until after America got involved? The CIA was selling crack at one time and they probably still sell drugs. The U.S. media portrays all these other governments as selling all sorts of weapons to criminals and such but don't believe for a second that the U.S. isn't involved in the same exact thing and that the U.S. is any better. I highly doubt that the U.S. is that much better than other countries and our the very broken nature of our mainstream media just raises more suspicion against the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What A Supprise
the list of US actions screwing up other countries/peopels is no less extensive than anyone else's in this regard, really. (possibly more so if you take an average over time :p)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What A Supprise
So it's not that bad, believe me, it's bad if you live in a dangerous zone (like the ghettos are dangerous over there). You should come and visit before saying that kind of stuff. Just don't go to border cities (Tijuana, Juarez...) xD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Arabs called...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Arabs called...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Arabs called...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Arabs called...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Arabs called...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We do? News to me. Individuals IN America may want to do that, but the US government gives away tons of IP all the time. Its the one thing the government does that endears it me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Surely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Surely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It ain't so simple as standard IP law...
As for the Greeks, well, if you started selling coffee mugs with the Parthenon on them at a place as famous as Starbucks, I am sure the Greek Government would have something to say about it...similarly, if you put King Tut, or other well known symbols of Egypt on the cups, Dr. Hawass would be on them so fast their heads would spin!
Or to put it in a way that Americans would understand...imagine if mugs had the Seal of the President of the United States printed on it...I am sure that President himself would raise a stink about it! It's that level of symbolism that we are dealing with here.
ttyl
Farrell
....amateur anthropologist, among other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It ain't so simple as standard IP law...
I don't like it when a bunch of cheap merchandise sucks the significance out of a symbol, but it's not exactly new. Look at the Yin-Yang, or the American flag (the latter has retained its meaning for most, but you can't deny that it turns up on a BUNCH of shoddy crap so some merchandisers can make a quick buck)
I'm not sure your analogy holds up. The presidential seal is an official government mark, essentially a logo, that carries connotations of endorsement -- somewhat different from the Parthenon or an Aztec calendar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It ain't so simple as standard IP law...
Sounds outrageous when some other country does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It ain't so simple as standard IP law...
> at a place as famous as Starbucks I am sure the Greek
> Government would have something to say about it
They can talk all they like but I don't have to listen. I can sell images of something that existed on this planet for millennia before the Greek government even existed and there's nothing they can do about it.
Same with Mexico.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch out Speilberg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogy...
ttyl
Farrell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(1) New Mail
Great, I just got a summons for saying "The Big Bang".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I live in New York City and I see the image of Lady Liberty plastered all over coffee mugs and shot glasses, miniature statues, snow globes, and pretty much anything else you can think of. I doubt all those merchandisers are paying royalties to... who? NY State Govt? Us Govt? France (since they created it)? It is illogical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Somehow the Statue of Liberty has fallen under public domain (I'm not an expert). Just like many American master's paintings once they become icons and representation of popular culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for copyright, that would only apply to the building itself, NOT pictures of the building, artistic representations of the building, etc., whose copyright would belong to whoever created them.
Plain and simple, you're wrong. Please state a source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does copyright protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works
Since all those buildings were constructed prior to 1990, it is NOT possible for anyone to hold a copyright on them. You're still wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Certain physical buildings or places are protected under trademark and/or copyright law. Over 150 buildings are registered trademarks. A building in public view is generally not protected; however, the artwork upon the building may be. For example, footage of a skyline may not require a license, but footage of an individual building, especially if it is unique or has art or ornate architectural designs applied to it, may require a separate license. If you want to use an image of a building or place that is not as it normally appears, or is not ordinarily visible from a public place, it may be protected under trademark and copyright law. When you review motion content, you need to analyze it to determine whether any item depicted in the motion content will require trademark clearance from the trademark owners. For example: Are there items depicted in a piece of motion content that contain a trademark or trade dress? Is a building with artwork depicted in the motion content? Is a building depicted whose owners use it as a registered or unregistered trademark? Does the motion content have a mark or trade dress that is confusingly similar to another owners mark? If so, you may need a license in addition to our license from the trademark owner, his or her estate or agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mexico is NOT the 51 state
So this blog post is complete bullshit. The linked-to article references a Mexico agency that is deciding on the fees owed by Starbucks. Sounds like a regulatory action within Mexico., i.e. completely up to the Mexican government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mexico is NOT the 51 state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money making
Looks like Egypt is in for a bonanza royalty on all those dollar bills with pyramids on them. And I hope Spain is going to get a good royalty from the Mexicans for their use of the language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Starbucks is caving in!
Starbucks says it is working with Mexico to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. It says the mugs have been removed from its shop shelves pending the discussions.
*****
A company statement says the supplier of the mugs felt it made good faith efforts to offer payment and obtain permits.
Probably NOT because of any worry about liability, but because the reason for using these images is (presumably) to make Starbucks seem sympatico with Mexican culture, and hence to appeal to a particular demographic, and the last thing Starbucks needs is to be denounced by the Mexican government as "stealing our culture."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His retort to what Mexico is saying is that why should they complain about someone in the US using their "culture" when so many Mexicans are illegally crossing the border to use ours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
starbucks
/fantasy off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]