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...

the law involved has nothing to do with copyright.

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.

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.

The amount is actually very low.

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.

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....

I you used those images for personal use, of cultural and artistic use, you do not have to pay anythin.

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...

i have a source only in spanish: http://miabogadoenlinea.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1348:starbucks-debera-pagar-derechos-al-inah&catid=57:el-derecho-y-mexico&Itemid=82 The plan was to use cups with historical momuments... but the press (mexican and international) only seemed interested in the prehispanic images...

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...

probably the letter should be directed to the agency that sold the images to Starbuck....

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...

Exaclty, you have to pay for it...

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.

They would repond that the payment wold not be required to Mexico... but to the people earning money with the use of those images...

Mainly.... National Geographic, The history channel, and of course... the catholic church...

Not only by the aztecs.

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.

No, the fee is used for the conservation of historical monuments. It includes any monument or archeological site that is under the juridiction INAH. (National institute of antropology and history) http://dti.inah.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2700&Itemid=463

If the momument has not been declared a national site, there is no fee.