Holy See Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the Pope 447
Posted
by
kdawson
from the vatican-rag dept.
from the vatican-rag dept.
An anonymous reader sends in news of what must be some kind of record in overreaching intellectual property claims: the Vatican has declared that the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See. They may have a point if, as the declaration hints, some have used "ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to attribute credibility and authority to initiatives" unrelated to the Vatican. But how much room will they allow for fair use? Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns? The royalty schedule was not released, so it's not clear how much Slashdot will have to pay to run this story (or if there will be a penalty for the accompanying pagan idol).
Re:Scope (Score:3, Informative)
In any organization connected to the Catholic church. This includes various parishes around the nation, high schools, some colleges, and any student or teacher organizations that are part of those. For example, a student-run newspaper at a Catholic university such as Notre Dame would be restricted in their use of papal symbols.
Even ignoring the fact that the U.S. does have treaties with the Vatican and would uphold their copyrights in court, a Catholic organization would suffer far more damage by being cut off from the church (i.e. excommunicated).
Disclaimer: I am Catholic and this does not bother me.
Re:Please keep in mind (Score:3, Informative)
Supremacy? No, but they do claim infallibility. From WP:
PS: Slashdot, fix the fucking comment box.
WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Who do they think they are, god?
Stonewolf
Re:Please keep in mind (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Interesting idea. (Score:2, Informative)
Romain 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use [chresis] into that which is against nature.
The term /chresis/ has the force of 'sexual relations' here (L&N 23.65).
Re:This definitely (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This definitely (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, yeah.
(Disclaimer: Catholic guy here. Take that as you will)
1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an imprimatur [reference.com] (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).
2) They've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so, and the office for roughly 1973 years (an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office, counting Dennis The Short's mathematical hose-ups on the whole Anno Domini tabulations.)
3) It's their office, thus their right... still open for parody and news purposes though, at least in western nations that enjoy freedom of speech. No different than if Tux the Penguin were registered as a trademark by the Linux Foundation, really (For instance, using Tux as a marker for Linux news stories, versus Microsoft using Tux as their new logo for Windows 8...) They're no further beyond or above secular law (outside of Vatican City) than any other organization... which makes the summary kind of a moot point.
Re:Doesn't surprise me (Score:3, Informative)
Per your link
In fact if you want to run the numbers there is about 2 billion flowing through Souix Falls South Dakota in a year. And they have a larger military footprint.
...erm... Dakota do this?
OMG! How in the heck can a
Stop being offended because it has a cross on it. You are becoming the thing you purport to hate.
Re:This definitely (Score:4, Informative)
The distinction between copyright, trademark, and patent law is important in todays information wars.
Re:This definitely (Score:4, Informative)
It is somewhat unsurprising that a Catholic is blissfully unaware that nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of Peter being named to this office, that Jesus even established the Papacy, or that Peter was even regarded as a bishop.
Most references only discuss the concept of Peter being in that role from about the 4th century AD, and indeed the Catholic church had to issue a document in the 1960s to codify this belief as dogma.
No, actually the original IS copyrightd... sort of (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This definitely (Score:3, Informative)
i stated nothing that cannot actually be backed up fully and entirely by very learned men with a VAST amoutn on knowledge which you clearly are not in posession of.....
Then perhaps you should give it to them, so they can learn for themselves.
It's an SNL Skit Come to Life (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This definitely (Score:4, Informative)
Italian guy here. Studied what an imprimatur was and its implications in literature in high school. In Galileo's times, imprimaturs ("be it printed", Latin) were necessary to print books in several areas of Italy, including, of course, the Papal States and all states that cared about good relationships with Rome. Therefore, obviously had Galileo to falsify one to publish a book, he would not have been able otherwise.
On the other hand, imprimaturs were widely recognised as marks of bad quality publications. They caused the same reaction that a label reading "this videogame has been approved by the Christian union of concerned mothers" would today.
No book worth reading has ever received the imprimatur, to my knowledge.
Re:Vatican Law - Jurisdiction (Score:2, Informative)
The Vatican is not part of the EU, but has a special agreement with the EU to i.e. use the Euro.
The Vatican could very likely not join the EU due to several obstacles. The EU is based on a separation of Church and State, however 5 member states have a State Church. However, far more important, religious discrimination is unlawful within the EU. Hence, as long as offices and jobs in the Vatican require the holder to be a Catholic, the Vatican would have tremendous problems complying with all EU law that would be required in that case.
I do not think the Vatican could get an exception like the UK get a lot of exceptions, since the discrimination in in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome and hence probably it is impossible to exempt from them.
trademark or copyright? Neither (Score:3, Informative)
This is neither trademark nor copyright, it is a statement of Church policy [vatican.va], and possibly a clarification of a particular application of a provision of Canon Law [vatican.va] that deals more with the organizational integrity of the Catholic Church than anything else.
It has nothing really to do with copyright or trademark, but this is Slashdot, so things unrelated to IP law in general and copyright in particular get shoved into those frames anyway.
Re:This definitely (Score:3, Informative)
If they claim they aren't Christians, then they aren't Catholic either.
In any case, there's one simple test to determine whether someone is a Christian or not - Nicene creed (yes, there is more than one version; I'd consider a person accepting any one currently in use a Christian).
Correction (Score:3, Informative)
The first two having apostolic and historic roots (ie go all the way back to apostles and first Christians) separated in 1054.
Actually all three branches have apostolic roots the only difference being that the Orthodox schism happened earlier than the Protestant one. Anglican bishops still trace their lineage back through the Catholic church to the apostles.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Informative)
Anglicans have, as I understand, nullified their priesthood after their separation
Not really - the Catholic church "nullified" the Anglican priesthood after separation however Anglicans do not acknowledge that as valid. Historically there is evidence to show that the chain of laying on hands from bishop to bishop back to the apostles is at least as unbroken as the Catholic chain.