Slashdot Mirror
Holy See Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the Pope
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).
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.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Supremacy? No, but they do claim infallibility. From WP:
PS: Slashdot, fix the fucking comment box.
Who do they think they are, god?
Stonewolf
Papal infallibility was only declared in the 1890s at the First Vatican Council. Prior to that the pope was just a man.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
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).
Not according to a lot of Protestants they're not. Something about going to hell for praying to statues.
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 (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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
The distinction between copyright, trademark, and patent law is important in todays information wars.
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.
Disclaimer: I have a Ph.D. in New Testament, so I know of what I speak. While the Greek Text itself is not (technically) copyrighted in certain forms, the specific arrangement of the Greek Text known as the "UBS4" that is the basis of all modern translations IS copyrighted. And the copyright is enforced. That is why I said "critical edition" or something along those lines in my original post.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
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.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
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.
This is neither trademark nor copyright, it is a statement of Church policy, and possibly a clarification of a particular application of a provision of Canon Law 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.
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).
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.