On April 13 the management of Matenadaran signed an agreement/contract with “Hill” library/museum of St. John clerical school in Minnesota, USA. According to the contract, the American party agrees to launch the digitalization of Armenian manuscripts. According to the contract, Americans are going to complete the process within 7 years and are supposed to present the acquired devices to the Matenadaran.
The title of the signed contact caused contradiction because it turned out that the letter of understanding sent by the Americans is translated as an agreement in Armenian. This is quite strange because the agreement and the letter were kept secret from the public and the Matenadaran staff. Moreover, the contract was attached to the agreement. This happened despite the fact that it was necessary to survey all the documents before the final endorsement. The contradictions in the Armenian and the English versions are not few, and very often statements of the two versions don’t match each other at all. Moreover, in the Armenian version of the letter and the contract, the word ‘digitizing’ is translated wrong. It’s translated as “tvaynatsum” in Armenian, however specialists claim that digitizing in Armenian should be translated “tvanshaynatsum”. One more example of wrong translation in the Armenian text, “The authorized body has the privilege to show the samples of low-quality images in the website and the digital sample gallery.” The English text says, “The authorized body has the right to show low-quality images…” The English version doesn’t say anything about samples. There are many confusing formulations as well. It turns out that after the digitization of manuscripts the copyright is going to be given to the Matenadaran, but the management of digitized images is going to belong to both of the parties. This is the most unclear and humiliating provision for the Armenian party. One of the provisions of the contract reads, “The Matenadaran and the authorized body are not authorized to make the collection available for the third party.” This means that if the third party wishes to have access to the collection it will be required to sign a new contract with both of the museums; for reproduction the third party will need a special license from both of the parties. The question is, what is going to happen if the American party refuses to give permission? How will the Matenadaran protect its copyright? Is the contradiction done on purpose or is it just an accident? This is a very subtle judicial game. The deputy-director of the Matenadaran, Arshak Banuchyan, announced that there is nothing wrong because the Hill needs permission from the Matenadaran whenever it needs to use the collection. It’s a natural thing because everybody needs permission from the Matenadaran, no matter if it’s the Hill or some British museum. The question is, what we are going to do if the Hill refuses the recommendation of the Matenadaran? We make the Hill a co-owner of the Matenadaran and pretty much offer them to equally direct our treasures. Every library, museum or gallery receives a lot of money for the duplication and sale of postcards, envelopes, etc. For example, the UK sells replica statues of the Armenian goddess Anahit at several thousand pounds. The original statue of Anahit is in the British museum and provides great annual profits for the museum.