Darn. I guess I'll have to change the name of my combination cookbook and illustrated billiards textbook now.

OK Jeffrey... that is called 'baiting the public'. Give us the needle please!

This could be a good move. Too many people get their picture with the Pope and then put it on their website to sell whatever.

>•< continues to rock!

yes, that's how I feel. we should get some lapel patches with B16's coat of arms! Or maybe shirts that say "I speak for Catholicism" ha ha

my combination cookbook and illustrated billiards textbook

Let me know when the movie comes out...

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

G, I should have mentioned, the book includes a DVD featuring archival interviews and footage of the Holy Father and Minnesota Fats. Well, it used to. Now I have to overhaul the entire project.

If the intent is to prevent misuse, then I don't have a problem with it. There are uses of these images that could be called abuses.

Each Pope has his own Coat of Arms

Charles, speaking of arms...
You know where the Pope keeps his armies?
Up his sleevies. Ducking and running.. ;-) Too bad I don't drink.

What I would consider an abuse would be something pornographic. Or perhaps something in really bad taste that smacks of character assassination. However, that can cross the line into parody which is permitted. Also, something using copyrighted materials for profit could call for a legal response.

Just so we are clear: a "legal response" means calling in the state police apparatus to crack down on the people's perceived abuse of religion.

how does one add an image here?

Sorry to beat this horse (which is not quite a dead one, but close to it perhaps) yet again.

We do well to remember that intellectual property rights protection puts the onus of enforcement squarely upon the individual owner of the copyright (or , in this case, perhaps more accurately, trademark, but basically, same idea, for all intents and purposes). So, any "enforcement" would absolutely not bear the stamp of a menacing government or secular arm, but rather, begin with the copyright owner's discretion, and from there, he may choose to enlist the government agency, in this case, the civil courts, as a law suit would have to be brought by the "offended" party.. OR the threat of a lawsuit - usually a letter from an attorney is usually quite enough to get most folks to desist. In other words, the "offense" would have to be fairly egregious, one would have to assume, for the Vatican to involve itself in chasing down the offenders and issuing "cease and desist" letters. There is probably not money to be "missed," on the part of the Vatican, for most images of the pope, as a public figure, are not subject to any copyright protection in the first place. This is to simply defend against misuse of the pope's image and symbols, to the extant that that may be subject to some protections. Many times, because the pope is a public figure, this would simply not be actionable.

Since no one has presented a link to what the Secretariat of State actually said, I'll give you the full text:

Recent years have witnessed a great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father. There has also been a desire to use the Pope’s name in the title of universities, schools or cultural institutions, as well as associations, foundations and other groups.

In light of this fact, the Holy See hereby declares that it alone has the right to ensure the respect due to the Successors of Peter, and, therefore, to protect the figure and personal identity of the Pope from the unauthorized use of his name and/or the papal coat of arms for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Occasionally, in fact, attempts have been made to attribute credibility and authority to initiatives by using ecclesiastical or papal symbols and logos.

Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff (his name, his picture or his coat of arms), and/or the use of the title "Pontifical", must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See.

It's about the use of papal names, emblems, and images: i.e., "trademark", so to speak. This is, of course, a different issue from copyright of texts, images, or music -- which is not mentioned at all.

Whether this declaration is needed or not, it's within the rights of the Vatican to make it. Jeffrey's take about the church-political "spin" of this declaration is plausible, though it probably needs to be balanced with the likelihood that some organizations may be using the name of, say, Pope John XXIII, as a banner for "leftish" ideas he wouldn't approve.

An often overlooked point of Catholic social doctrine is that everyone has the right to the preservation of his good name. It would be an unjust exploitation if someone were to name an institute of Liturgical Autoharp Studies after Jeffrey, for example.

I think one need look no further than the recent U. of Notre Dame debacle to see why the Holy See might want to keep this "hole card." In other words, we can no longer assume our "Catholic" institutions are living up to the name, and therefore, should not be able to march out the papal colors without approval of the Holy See. Makes sense to me.


DBP, you might as well say the church should not protect its real property through any civil means. Or maybe not buy insurance, or hire lawyers, ever, for any circumstance. This is a prudent move, nothing more or less, though we should be concerned with such issues as they can, if not carefully monitored, at some turns, cross that line wherein the Church's otherworldly concerns might be compromised. I don't think, in this case, that this does. Not even very close.

If 'carte blanche' approval was given across the board to reproduce church documents, this could open up the greater possibility that these might be "fudged" and still bear the Church's name; obviously this would usually involve some nefarious motives.

JT, (re: for 19 centuries. .... etc.) I am amazed by this type of reasoning. I guess by that line of argument, we should question why the pope might now want to get in an airplane, or speak on the 'radio' or TV even, or use a computer. Did not need them for quite a number of centuries either. And once again, almost any of our laws, both bad and GOOD, are subject to being abused and/or misapplied, copyright legislation definitely not the exception. Not necessarily a good argument for their being rejected.

I find it odd that on this site, dedicated, on its face, to the advancement or reclamation of tradition, which also, part and parcel, would mean a respect for the collective wisdom of the Church through the centuries, especially in the person of the Vicar of Christ, we find some so apt to go 'off the rails' on "pet" concerns, concerns built around a priori assumptions, the veracity of which are somehow "proven" based on sketchy and somewhat reactionary anectdotal, and definitely not nuanced or balanced, "evidence" about the general evils of Intellectual Property rights and protections, especially in the modern era. These assumptions then, somehow, are elevated to the level of accepted 'truths,' even rising to the level of challenging the smarts of the Church hierarchy at the highest strata, in spite of our current pope's virtually unrivaled accumen across multiple diciplines, the experience of the Holy See with these types of issues over many decades, if not centuries, and his solidarity with us here with a demonstable dedication to that very reclamation we here would attest to be seeking. Truly amazing.

In plain English, concerning this decision to exercise prudence through the securing of at least some copyright/trademark protections, some here think the Pope is just too stupid to know better. I vehemently disagree.

Z, there is a serious difference between a technological advance and the imposition of a law that restricts the free flow of information. In fact, I don't see that they have anything to do with each other at all.

Fair enough challenge, but the answer to this would be "that depends." It might be yes or no. In this case, when the technology itself has caused not an evolution, but indeed a veritable "revolution" in the modus of how things (information, IP) are disseminated, redefining what is the new 'playing field' and what are the 'new rules,' well, I would think the answer would be obvious - if one would simply consider the invention of the 'Xerox' (now a generic, like 'coke')machine and its effect on paper based copying, much of it "illegal" and meant to sidestep and thus deprive copyright owners of a legitimate return. Then, the cassette tape, same thing with audio, then the video cassette, and then digital everything for everything, with even less controls, with now virtually identical copies, (IOW, no degeneration or degradation in quality of the copies themselves) and faster and universal dissemination. So, yes, the analogy holds up, in spades from this vantage point. Mentioning the digital - as an active member in the creative community most affected, the music biz folks - in just a few short years time, less than ten, and really accelerated in the last five, I would say, we have seen a totally devastation of a once flourishing industry, and you have to go to the second and third tiers sometimes to really see the effects of this, and this is most felt in Miami, NY, Los Angeles, Nashville, London and like media centers. We're not really talking "stars" or record moguls here, although they might be affected as well. More we're talking songwriters, big and small, record producers, studio owners and everyone they hire: studio session players, engineers, copyists, arrangers, secretaries and other administrators, just devastating. Record companies of two hundred employees are now five or six. And this as a direct result of digital copying and distribution, which makes the cassette tape look like a mild cold in the face of pancreatic cancer. So, yes, absolutely, the times do matter in the very practical "balancing act" which is the ongoing IP debate.

I should say "obvious" to those who believe that this is a case of balancing of concerns of the IP owners and users, who believe that IP should be legitimately protected, whether we are talking inventions, architect plans, compositions, artwork, films, or Grandma's secret recipe. OTOH, JT, like all idealogues, (please, tell me that you are not, but you don't give me any evidence to the contrary) start with the 'super ideal' - a fair use utopianism, in which all intellectual property is the property of everyone, where there are no legitimate protections or rewards for IP, and taken to its natural conclusion, it is even very OK to break into Grandma's house and put her banana bread recipe up on the internet.

By the way, last year's colloquium announcement featured a picture of the Pope with a quotation in favor of Gregorian chant. You are going to tell me that this is abuse of the Papacy's IP?

No, not in all likelyhood; again, this is a discretionary "preventive," as I mentioned above in my first response on this thread, and any "teeth" in any such "enforcement" would be applied only after being initiated by the CR/TM owner himself, and really, is the Vatican going to be spending its time and money in this way, no way. In many cases involving the Pope's image in particular, any claim would be balanced against counter claims that the pope is such a huge public figure that any type of alleged "infringement" would come under the idea of 'fair use' principals.

Basically, the Holy See's claim is in place to say "No, Notre Dame, you may not use the Pope's image nor may you fly the coat of arms at BHO's canonization ceremony." Or, "Yes, of course, Sisters of Charity, you may indeed use the Pope's pictures and coat of arms in your brochure," or, more aptly "Well, JT, we'll have to get back to you on that request." (LOL)

Michael,

Some of your observations are "on point" while some others not so much.

With out going 'point by point' I would say that your figuring on the balance of the risk factor in the production and distribution of a record is just upside down. The record companies (why are they always the proverbial 'bogey man' in these examples?) produce appox. 19 losers to every 'hit.'
Most of the "losers" see not the light of day. They put up all the money. That sounds like all the "risk" to me. Understood properly, the record contract is basically an unsecured loan to the artist. Yes, if the record sells he pays back production costs out of his share, but if he is one of the nineteen, he is not on the hook for one dime of most of the time substantial production costs, sometimes a couple hundred thousand, not to mention videos, etc. This is why these stocks have not been hot commodities on wall street: i.e., high risk, relatively low return. If this is such a winning formula, everyone would be in it. It is a tough, tough business. I suggest that perhaps you and a few friends put together a few thousand and go try and and report back how the deck is so stacked in your favor.

The other point about the inevitable nature of the Napster revolution, and how the record companies themselves are to blame, one has to accept the idea that these teenagers (but certainly not only they) would behave differently if perhaps, according to your argument, the record companies did everything right. Are you willing to make that assertion. I didn't think so. People, sorry to say, are inclined to steal if it is made easy enough and there is no disincentive or shame factor. Create a bogey man (record company) and it is all the better. Yah, sure, fewer will steal if we make it easier to buy things, but that in itself, at least according to my Bible, is not enough to justify stealing. 'Kids at home hungry,' yes; 'you've got to buy the albumn,' not really.

Sure the advent of the CD saw the demise of the 'single' which was perhaps short sighted and bad judgment, I don't know. Perhaps. Point granted.

These arguments you cite, generally, are well circulated and somewhat, by now, hackneyed, and they are mostly circulated by the feel better while stealing , Napster type, crowd. Or the same crowd posing as (supposedly) high minded "trample all barriers to intellectual freedom'' folk who also usually just want a freebie. When you really want answers, the most sure road is to "follow the money trail."


To your other observations about musicians being able to make a living, well, that is all over the map according to country, century, etc. and as such hard to bring this point to bear in any meaningful way relative to the discussion at hand. Music, like acting, is the type of profession where you always have more willing participants at the professional level than paying slots or positions. You have a few Brad Pitts and a whole lot of others practicing their "craft" on the diners at the local restaurant hoping for a little bit bigger tip. Ironically, as far as music, it is not the degree'd folks who are at the top of the heap, especially as the bar has been lowered. They do make money, though it is more in the educational realm than in the performing/recording realm. Please do reference what Bob Dylan has had to say recently about the relative importance of records of yesterday vs. today, at least perception wise, and how that has affected the quality overall of recorded music. Recorded music today, (perception wise), has become not worth the medium it is printed on. An album release used to be seen as the equivalent to a theater release of a prominent first run film. Not any more. I don't see that coming back, and I don't know how this affects the realm of live music presentation and its perceived value. Very hard to draw conclusions though it has not been a banner last couple of years for live music overall.

Any word on what the Pope (TM) thinks of all this? Seriously, are we going to have to slap "TM" signs on everything, a la the late, lamented Grudge Match, anytime we discuss anything related to the Holy Father?

Z, I don't know about audio and entertainment, but in the world of literature, authors are hopelessly ignorant of the reality that when they sign these egregious contracts, they are signing away their human rights. I see this every single day. Books that are not being marketed or are being sold for hundreds of dollars - but the author himself cannot even use the text on his own website much less have someone else publish it. And this persists until 70 years after the author is dead. It is a state of indentured servitude - in life and even after death - and a moral outrage. I consider the publishers who do this sort of exclusive contract to be criminals. In ten or twenty years, I don't believe that they will be doing things this way. Some authors are just beginning to wise up here. I assume that the music and entertainment world will catch on eventually too.

Paul:

Sorry this is so late... coudn't figure out the code until Chrism posted it and I came back to my computer.

Also with more libraries going to online content, the publishers have fewer libraries buying and thus the price will go up.

I noticed that the announcement at Rorate Coeli mentions the word "Pontifical" as being restricted; wouldn't that mean that we'd have to request permission from the Vatican when we wanted to type up a programme for a "Pontifical High Mass"? That seems a little ridiculous to me. But, perhaps I'm just reading into it.