This will be where I post our hand made PBC book ribbons (coming soon)

FYI

I would like to give you my perspective on the issue with Britta's icon as an imitation of Brother Joseph's icon. I have alerted Brother Joseph that this thread has been reopened so he is free to add his comments also.

Brother Joseph and I discussed the icon. I took his icon and superimposed it on Britta's icon using Photoshop. They are two distinct, one-of-a-kind, hand painted icons. Brother Joseph and I very much agreed that she merely used his icon in imitation and it is not a copy; two very different things.

Brother Joseph's original design is quite stunning. You can see it on his website here.

http://www.josephbrownicons.com/st-cecilia/

A little history of iconography:

In the long run, icons are very often used as templates, and many of them are similar to each other.

NOTE: Part of the spirituality of iconography in days past was that the artist 'released' the work to the Holy Spirit when it was finished and the artist did not claim authorship (that is why they don't sign them on the front).

I am not saying that has to be the case to be an iconographer today. It is totally up to the individual artist to release works to the public just as composers of music can choose to copyright or not.

I also own an icon by Ben Kostadinov, a famous Russian iconographer who was my friend when I lived back East, and he signs the front of his.

Perhaps Brother Joseph will have something to add to my comments as I have alerted him to this post being reopened.

Thank you all for your concern, and God Bless Brother Joseph and one of his admirers, Britta. Both of their work and dedication to sacred art is invaluable to us all!

Thank you for reopening the thread, Francis. As per our conversation, icons are the work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of the iconographer. One of the reasons for iconographers not signing the icon is that it places the work in the hands of the artisan, rather than on the Source. All iconographers should be working off of the types handed down to us in the Tradition. THe Spirit may move a change in composition and form that should bring the theological content of the icon into even greater clarity, an example being the great Old Testament Trinity of Rublev.
That being said, tradition is not equipped yet with the canons regarding electronic means of reproduction. I became aware of Britta's icon while I was researching a website for a heretical church that had wanted permission to use the icon on their website. I declined permission. The church did not have a theology of icons, and had completely split from orthodox theology. I was then branded a "hater" and closed to the "all-embracing love of the Mother-Father God". Yawn.
The electronic image of St. Cecilia is copyrighted to prevent electronic or reproductive use on books, mugs, t-shirts, bumper-stickers,etc. That is not because I am being a meanie-poopie-head. It is because an icon is a sacred image; something that lies between a sacramental, and the Sacrament. It is a true bearer of the Image, and not to be carelessly placed on something that neither preserves that dignity or is easily thrown in the trash. That is the reason for the copyright. I hope that this explains my position. It has nothing to do with Britta's use of the prototype, and everything to do with preserving the integrity of the icon.

Thank you Brother Joseph for your kind and objective words. May God continue to bless you with many years of icon writing.

JosephBrown I sent you an email through the contact form on your website when I first discovered your work from this thread, but I don't know if you received it or not. Would you mind emailing me at adam.michael.wood@gmail.com, or finding me on FB, or messaging me here in the forum?

Thanks.

the website (which is the work of Satan...)

At times I've entertained that thought - or, perhaps, that thought entertained me.