Copyright my foot!

Tue Feb 1 16:50:43 UTC 2005

I agree with José. In publishing, I have run into both greed and extreme
generosity. Copyright is a myth. If you read the copyright agreement on
anything it is so limited, there is, unfortunately, a way out for every
time a user wants to take advantage of someone else's property.
To give you my most immediate example. I once had to request permission
to reprint a couple of quotes coming from an original of Rosario
Castellanos translated by a US scholar (for obvious reasons I will not
mention the name). The publisher sent me on the quest, at my expense of
course, conditioning my participation on a book. Rosario Castellano´s
heir granted unlimited use at no charge of any text by Castellanos. The
translator, instead, who claimed unlimited rights, charged roughly 100
dollars per word. Totally ridiculous! And was there a way around? Of
course, so close to my keyboard. I did my own translations and
copyrighted them myself it cost me thirty dollars. 
A lot of people and institutions get away with copyright claims due to
our ignorance. I recently copyrighted a manuscript and though its idea
is totally original anybody can take the character, parts of the
research, anything and copyright it on their name. 
There are specifics on intellectual work that exceeds fifty years. But
you could check yourself. Someone has already posted the page in the US.
You can also sign up for a newsletter that deals in all these issues and
that is very interesting.

I wrote a journalistic article on the very interesting case of a Scholar
who claimed intellectual property on a mural done by a huichol, Santos
de la Torre Santiago. The story was totally pathetic. Santos was asked
to make a mural de chaquiras to be donated by Carlos Salinas to France,
and placed in the Metro -station Louvre-. The moneys to pay Santos came
from a grant and were allocated for the production of two identical
murales. Santos, as you may imagine was given enough to buy the
chaquiras and to survive while working on the mural. The rest of the
money and the final work went to the scholar who bluntly claimed sole
the property and copyright. This all happened under the eye of very
intense media coverage. I think it was channel 4 that first aired scenes
from San Andrés, in the Sierra, depicting the real author of the mural,
claiming he was not even invited to Paris, to the ceremony of the
donation between governments.
Years passed and Santos lost both murals and was not given credit.
Finally someone started to reclaim Santos´ rights and made some noise.
Santos got his mural back and the last think I knew is that he wanted to
have it sent to the US, as a response to an offer he couldn't refuse.
The whole story was outrageous. All cultural authorities in Mexico were
involved, the museo de antropología, Conaculta, etcetera. 
Santos being a chamán, of the highest rank, can care less about
property, yet, it seemed so unfair to me, at the time, that copyright
issues touched in such crooked ways the wonderful sierra huichola.

Maria Dolores Bolívar

-----Original Message-----
From: Nahua language and culture discussion
[mailto:NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On Behalf Of José Rabasa
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:17 AM
To: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: A Question for Experts Here

In this respect the Biblioteca del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia
e Historia at the Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City lead all
libraries I have visited by not only not charging for the
reproduction and use of images but by providing high resolution
reproductions in free CDs.  It appears that Metropolitan centers
that claim to be only responsible holders of collections hog
materials and display outlandish greed. Now, as most of you, I am
most interested in the resolution to this most pressing question.
Note that the University of California Press edition of Codex Mendoza
does not own the copyrights of the images but the Bodleyian as
"owners" of the codex. The Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris might be
slow but does not charge for use and allows the use of scanned images
free of charge.

Jose

>An archive in Canada is allowing me to reproduce an important early
>historical map of which they hold the original. The permission was
free,
>but I had to buy and will have to use *their* photo of the map. That
cost
>$100 US.
>
>Michael
>
>On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Richley Crapo wrote:
>
>>  It's nice to know that I am not alone in wondering about this. The
>>question arose for me when my publisher informed me that he expects
>>his authors to secure copyright permissions for illustrations, but
>>didn't offer any guidelines that cover this question. He's aiming
>>for being in print in 5 or 6 months, and I know from experience,
>>for instance, that the library in Paris that holds the original of
>>Anonymo will reply to my request for images with about a two month
>>turnaround time, and then only to send a billing statement that
>>they will want to have paid before actually making the
>>copies--another two month process. I don't mind paying them to do
>>the work of making a copy, but the time lag being what it is, I
>>would prefer a faster option if one legally exists. So I've begun
>>to wonder whether (1) the fact that the original was written four
>>centuries ago makes it fair game as "public domain" material and
>>(2) whether there is still a copyright interest in facsimile
>>editions of more recent vintage or whether it is legitimate to take
>>one's own copy from such a source, say by doing one's own scan of
>>an image in it.
>>
>>  I'm still interested in whatever insights others have who have
>>experience in this arena.
>>
>>  Richley
>>
>>  >>> brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU 02/01/05 07:04 AM >>>
>>  This is interesting. I paid to have photographic images made of some
>>  Mexican pictographic documents housed in the Lilly Library, and they
say
>>  that if I ever use them in a publication, I have to pay them a fee
of
>>  $100.00 per image. They also charge $100.00 for use of an image in
an
>>  exhibition and $15.00 for use in a public or classroom lecture.
>>  Is this passage from 2004 that you cite a change in the law, or has
the
>>  Lilly Library been collecting unjustifiable fees?
>>  Also, assuming that the passage cited is not eing taken out of
context,
>>  I assume that this applies to images that you obtain directly from
the
>>  manuscript or original book. In other words, you wouldn't be able to
>>  reproduce an image taken from a facsimile edition without permission
>>  from the publisher, right?
>>
>>  Galen
>>
>>
>>
>>  SIMON LEVACK wrote:
>>  > Richley Crapo wrote:
>>  >
>>  > <<when the original source is a Nahuatl manuscript such as Xolotl
or
>>  > Anonymo where the original is housed in a library, does the
library
>>  > typically assert control of all copyright authority so that they
are the
>>  > entity that must grant permission or is the several hundred years
age of
>>  > such a document place it into public domain?>>
>>  >
>>  > Having wrestled with the same problem I think the answer is that
it's in
>>  > the public domain. According to the US Copyright Office
>>  >
>>  > "Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy
or
>>  > phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law
provides
>>  > that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a
>  > > protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the
copyright."
>>  > (US Copyright Office Circular 1, Revised December 2004)
>>  >
>>  > For the full text of the circular, follow this link:
>>  >
>>  > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
>>  >
>>  > Simon Levack
>>  > Author of the Aztec Mysteries
>>  > Please take a few moments to visit my website at
>>  > www.simonlevack.com
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>