Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Image

Holy See Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the Pope 447

Posted by kdawson
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).

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Holy See Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the Pope

Comments Filter:
  • by FatSean (18753) on Monday December 21 2009, @12:15AM (#30508938) Homepage Journal

    The entire organisation is based on selling a bunch of silly and un-provable claims to millions...and they're seeking the legal benefit of copyright?

    That is so wrong...

  • Re:Fine. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by armanox (826486) <asherewindknight@yahoo.com> on Monday December 21 2009, @12:19AM (#30508954) Homepage Journal
    I think that many religions would site religious texts as evidence of prior art on that one.
  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Monday December 21 2009, @12:28AM (#30509020)
    All they need to do is register their symbols, images, etc as trademarks in every country of the world.
  • Re:F/OSS Religion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AuMatar (183847) on Monday December 21 2009, @12:36AM (#30509068)

    I suggest you tell that to these guys [conservapedia.com]

  • Legit use (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bjackson1 (953136) <{bjackson1} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday December 21 2009, @12:44AM (#30509106)

    My guess is that if it's ever used it be against idiots like:

    'Pope' Pius XIII
    http://www.truecatholic.us/ [truecatholic.us]

    or other people who set themselves up as the pope... Just a guess though...

  • Doesn't surprise me (Score:1, Interesting)

    by still-a-geek (653160) on Monday December 21 2009, @12:52AM (#30509152)
    The Vatican is run like a business and has done so since its inception. It is one of the richest entities in the world that is its own country, has its own army and has its own economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_city [wikipedia.org].

    How in the heck can a religion do this? It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for: Peace, love, and helping people, not killing countless millions and building an empire in the name of God. What a bunch of hypocrites! It wouldn't surprise me that the Vatican will try and copyright (trademark, too) the name Vatican or even Jesus Christ one of these days.
  • by turtleshadow (180842) on Monday December 21 2009, @12:58AM (#30509186) Homepage

    I think your looking for a word in the thesaurus that doesn't exist but really it is a modern problem.
    Steven Colbert sensed this with the "product" such as the paste on Hitler mustache for anybody's portrait.

    There is not a nice politically correct way to say willfully deride, malign, or intend a vicious and ill parody of person or entity for profit.
    Many hide under the guise of sarcasm of a celebrity or public figure but that is not their true intent.

    Others instances are not so such as Che Guevera, and the people never get a dime from all those t-shirts did they? But his image "pushes" a lot of "for profit products", to so many hipsters who don't know what he really did or didn't do yet he himself was Marxist.

    This is a strange world of legal and human relationships

  • by 228e2 (934443) on Monday December 21 2009, @02:02AM (#30509456)
    You'd rather eat them then rape them??? What a modest proposal!
  • by nia60 (1704786) on Monday December 21 2009, @03:36AM (#30509778)
    As the Vatican is a state with soverign rights and its own laws, I'm sure that this is totally enforceable - inside the Vatican's border that is!
  • And in other news... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jamyskis (958091) on Monday December 21 2009, @04:19AM (#30509936) Homepage

    And, in other news...

    The Pope was today sued by God for GPL violations of the Bible. The complaint submitted by God claimed that all material published by the Holy Father was required to be released under the GNU General Public Licence because it was a derivative work of the scriptures.

  • Re:This definitely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pax681 (1002592) on Monday December 21 2009, @06:26AM (#30510436)
    the first Bishop... hmmmz that'd be James The Just.... you know the guy who nearly had Saul/Paul thrown off the walls of Jerusalem for generally recruiting the diaspora and non jews to the "faith".

    James the Just was the.. BROTHER of Jesus, the ELDER brother according to every writing contemporary to the times.

    he was the first "Mebakker"(bishop/guardian)

    funnily enough just after Constantine thought it'd be a great idea to perpetuate the Roman empire thought the Church of Rome there first appeared the fake entries in "Josephus : Antiquities of the Jews" which mentioned Jesus in an allegedly contemporary writing.

    while Josephus DID indeed write the Antiquities of the Jews" the entries regarding Jesus were proven to be slotted in.
    the same technique that identified the different authors of the bible was used to discover that the entries were indeed faked. The antiquities of the Jews also mentions James as the brother of Jesus and this could also be written off as fakery were it not for this also being said BY Origen in around 234 when quoting Josephus but makes no mention of the "Testimonium Flavianum" (wee bio of jesus) and also mentioned in the Dead Sea SCrolls (see James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls)

    so... if James was his ELDER half brother..... how can the immaculate conception have occurred...... let me help you.. it didn't it just helped weave in the mythology of other Romano/Greek deities into the mix.. i could go on the the rest of the mythology surrounding jesus and his alleged story but i can't be bothered atm.. am on call and may have to shoot out and tend to my flock of clients who can't find their own ass with a map as far a their PC's go
  • by 91degrees (207121) on Monday December 21 2009, @06:44AM (#30510500) Journal
    Who cares? The copyright/trademark holder doesn't get to make this decision.
  • Re:This definitely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nyctopterus (717502) on Monday December 21 2009, @07:08AM (#30510612) Homepage

    Well, it depends on whether you think a religion is a set of doctrines or a social construction.

  • High School (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tehcyder (746570) on Monday December 21 2009, @12:11PM (#30512936) Journal

    Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?

    WTF? What kind of schools do you have in America?

  • Re:This definitely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AndersOSU (873247) on Monday December 21 2009, @02:07PM (#30514538)

    As a product of 12 years of catholic schooling, let me just say that this is generally regarded as ret-conning. You can tie institutional Catholicism to Peter though scripture, but drawing a line from Peter through to Leo is a bit dicey.

  • Re:Correction (Score:2, Interesting)

    by paxcoder (1222556) on Wednesday December 23 2009, @05:31AM (#30533750)

    Orthodox still.. let's say 'more directly' trace their roots from Apostles, as do Catholics. Anglicans have, as I understand, nullified their priesthood after their separation (not sure if it's heresy or the mere fact of schism). Orthodox priesthood is, in contrast, acknowledged by the Catholic Church, and also then their sacraments are valid.
    Also, Anglicans are one, and protestants another thing. They call themselves protestant, but even then, they are only one of many denominations. And a majority of them does not share their views, and have no pastors "ordained" by priests in their roots.

  • Re:This definitely (Score:2, Interesting)

    by paxcoder (1222556) on Wednesday December 23 2009, @05:53AM (#30533806)

    Notice he said "Catholicism" and "Protestantism" and not "Catholics", and "Protestants" - even though, I admit I would complain in the latter case as well because I wanted to bring up doctrine each of the groups subscribe to.
    The truth of statements I have presented about *Catholicism* is verifiable in the official doctrine of the Church, and about *Protestantism* by research about the doctrines of the majority of them (since they differ in teaching, as pointed out by others).
    To expound now on what I previously said in the light of what you added: The guilt we feel when we sin should (primarily?) be the product of our love for God whose will we disregard when we sin. Its source is also conscience which I believe is more refined in Christ seekers (I'm not talking about nominally Christians as a whole) than the moral and ethics of the world. Again, not punishment, but love & conscience.
    Any difference between behavior expected of subscribers to Catholic teachings, and that observed in nominally Catholics, it can be a product of what is called "bad spirituality" - another one of Satans traps (ie he convinces you you cannot be forgiven, even though it's not true).

If the government doesn't trust the people, why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people?

Working...