Maori Tattoos

Re: Maori Moko Letters

Lolita:

Ms Woolfrey's question about the [Maori tattoo] photos, though certainly not intentionally disrespectful, is somewhat ironic considering the painstaking care that Neleman and his collaborators took to respect their subjects' wishes in regards to their tattoos. I quote from the introduction below:

Maori are prepared to fight to protect their traditions, to hide them, if necessary, from the bored, fascinated eyes of a world hungry for the 'exotic'...They want to show them (others who are willing to understand) that there is important, sacrosanct meaning behind the beauty of the designs, in order to further protect the art from those who look purely out of horrified curiosity or who attempt to appropriate the patterns for uses other than those that are personal or sacred...

"Fearing exploitation, Maori ta moko (tattoo) artists and wearers were firm in their insistence that any photographs would be taken only under Maori terms. Intellectual property rights and all copyrights were to remain with the subjects. Neleman was granted only the right to publish a book and to exhibit the photographs in a gallery or museum. and Maori participation in each stage of the book was guaranteed. Resulting profits were to come back to the Maori community in a fund to be established by ta moko proponents."

From the beginning of the book, this message is clear: to take these designs for one's own use (especially from internet photos, which if I am not mistaken is a double-abuse), even if done out of appreciation for their beauty, without understanding or even any apparent desire to understand, is completely a violation. It may seem suprising that the Maori express such vehemence about this art form, but anyone who looks into their history and current struggle would surely empathize that their moko, at the very least, should not be stolen, cheapened, or used. It is frustrating to think how often we Westerners are caught in a consumerist mindset, where we feel it natural to commodify bits and pieces of people's lives and identities for our own pleasure.

[The Editor's] comments about the "peaceful Maori" I think are particularly sad and angering: they reflect so much fear and racial tension, a lack of understanding, and the dehumanization of the "other."

And lastly, I am assuming (though with little optimism, what with the lack of respect for intellectual property rights online) that you, Ralph Magazine, are scrupulously paying each of the persons' whose faces are displayed in this article their due royalties.

The Editor Responds:

The standard practice for book review magazines is that they are allowed to reproduce several pictures from the book reviewed without paying royalties.

The thesis is that the review itself is a form of free advertising for the author and the publisher.

Since ours is a non-profit operation, we obviously receive no pecuniary advantage from the use of these images.

In our twelve years of publication, with thousands of reviews --- always mailed off at publication in hard copy to the publisher --- we have only been called to task three times for the "unauthorized" use of pictures. Two of these were culled from the internet, one from a book under review.

In all three cases we immediately pulled the picture.

Finally, we have to confess that we stand dumbfounded that the characterization of a whole culture as "peaceful" could be considered by anyone, anywhere, in any circumstances, as an insult.