Bootlegacy: Liz Nevis on intellectual and cultural property

Curse of the Atocha Part 3: Collateral Damage

Elizabeth Nevis — Wed, 23 May 2007 05:41:50 +0000

In Parts 1 and 2, we heard about the legal travails of Treasure Salvors, Inc., who found and salvaged the wreck of the Nuestra Senora de Atocha. But the curse of curios-in-curiae didn’t end there: even buying, owning, selling, or donating Atocha artifacts had legal ramifications.
(more…)

Curse of the Atocha, Part 1: In Rem, Ad Nauseam

Elizabeth Nevis — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:05:56 +0000

This is me in 1994 with treasure hunter Mel Fisher, who salvaged the wreck of the Spanish treasure ship Nuestra Senora de Atocha. Mrs. Fisher customarily took pictures like these whenever a visitor to their Treasure Museum (now the Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Museum) in Key West* bought a gold 8-reale coin (”piece of eight”) from the ship’s haul while she and Mel happened to be in town. That was what I’d just done; that’s my “I’ve been SCUBA diving all morning, wandering around in the sun all afternoon, and now I just spent a pretty big (for me) wad of cash” slightly poleaxed smile. That’s also one of the Atocha’s gold chains around my neck (just for the picture); who knew the Spaniards of 1622 blinged themselves out like the rappers of 1985?

Not until ten years later, in law school, did I learn that this shipwreck was the centerpiece of a litigation train-wreck. There were too many lawsuits to describe in even one of my awfully-long posts, so I’m having to serialize. In stories, sunken and buried treasures are often cursed (I mean “with bad mojo,” not “by people trying unsuccessfully to find them”). But the usual curse symptoms are violent death, or insanity, or something similarly speedy and dramatic. Upon reflection, though, “a long, tangled string of lawsuits on whomsoever disturbs this place” is a pretty good curse.

And, like someone seeing a train wreck, I couldn’t look away.

(more…)

A Clash of Symbols: Commodification of Cultural and Religious Images

Elizabeth Nevis — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:46:21 +0000

Appropriation of minority religious or other cultural images by outsiders - often, though not always, as a status symbol or fashion statement - is a sharpening point of controversy in some parts of the world. People from the originating cultures are upset for any or all of a number of reasons:

Some images are traditionally classified “eyes only” for certain individuals or subgroups under certain circumstances.
The right to display some images traditionally had to be earned rather than bought.
Outsiders displaying the images often do not know or care about their meanings or the traditional rules for how they are to be displayed.
Some images are traditionally not intended for fixation in some types of media, or for any type of permanent fixation at all.
Even if none of the above objections apply and the image may be embodied in a commodity and sold, people who believe they should be entitled to a share of the proceeds aren’t getting any.

(more…)