Copyright now extends into the heavens, reports the Catholic News Agency:
The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise authorized.
The statement cited a “great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father” in recent years as contributing to a desire to use the Pontiff’s name for all manner of educational and cultural institutions, civic groups and foundations.
Due to this demand, the Vatican has felt it necessary to declare 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.”
The declaration alludes to attempts to use ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to “attribute credibility and authority to initiatives” as another reason to establish their “copyright” on the Holy Father’s name, picture and coat of arms.
“Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff… and/or the use of the title ‘Pontifical,’ must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See,” concluded the message released to the press.
Note, the copyright isn’t claimed by the state of Vatican City, but by the Holy See, which is the episcopal jurisdiction of the pope in his capacity as bishop of Rome.
{ 18 comments }
Can we still pontificate on things or will they try to charge us for that, too?
I hate copyrights and patents, but this sounds more like a trademark issue. While, I think that many are unnecessary, and some like the way Disney trademarks Mickey Mouse, is pretty bad. Overall, trademarks don’t bother me as much as other IP because they are mostly about fraud and misrepresentation. If I put an IBM logo on all my adverts in a way that implies that I am operating on behalf of IBM, that really is a form of fraudulent misrepresentation.
IANAL, but I agree with David C, this looks much more like a trademark issue than a copyright one.
I agree with the assessment that this is an issue of Identity. Trademark, Signature, Branding, are identification property. Unlike other forms of IP, these are justifiable forms. Identity is absolutely necessary to proper social functioning.
The idea that it somehow helps the Vatican to spend its time enforcing even a trademark is ridiculous. A decision like this – if it is enforced – can’t but end in reducing the public stature of the papacy. How would this be good for the Catholic Church? A bit of open sourcing here would help.
@jeffrey
Well, technically speaking – if I pretend I’m representing the papacy, that defrauds the people who believe in me, but doesn’t defraud the Church. However, unlike a company, the church is an institution of morality. I have every expectation of them to try to define what’s right and wrong … and it is technically immoral of me to pretend to be representing the church, if I don’t. So I suppose it’s in their right to take that position.
I agree with the others. This is not a copyright issue. This is a trademark issue. Actually it’s a non-issue. It’s a bit funny that the church would go to these lengths, but there are no wrongs here.
“if I pretend I’m representing the papacy.”
Well, that is a rather common problem actually.
This might also be a pot/kettle issue. Should we point out what the pope pretends to represent?
All this makes me wonder when the cross is going to become intellectual property…
I hope I still get to use my surname because it translates to “son of the pope”, and I’m pretty sure that does represent the church somehow……
I still wonder what the libertarian way of handling this is. You want others to be able to identify things that you have authorized or represent you. How do you do this without threatening force against people who falsely claim to represent you? Note that this isn’t necessarily fraud, if the false claimers aren’t selling anything and thus aren’t misrepresenting themselves in a contract.
at Shay,
I would imagine it would be treated in a similar fashion to slander or libel.
Walter Block presents an interesting article on the subject here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block124.html
Perhaps the papacy, like any human institution, is subject to the influence of mankind’s sinful nature, and thus subject to moral error?
How unCatholic of them!
To paraphrase Hitler, “How many IP lawyers does the Vatican have?” It seems to me that the only people the Vatican has any real power over are Catholics, who aren’t generally inclined to misuse the Pope’s image. They’re really making an ethical statement here, not a legal one. As for the moral crime of abusing Christ’s Vicar on Earth or the image thereof, I’m sure there’s a Controlling Legal Authority Who can deal with that, sooner than anyone wishes.
Apparently, Rome thinks the beliefs of the Church are protected by copyright, as well.
And here I’ve been treating the beliefs of One God, an only-begotten Son, and a Holy Spirit as something subject to that whole “Go ye therefore” thing. Guess I’d better write the Pope for express written permission to share the faith with anyone before I do it again.
There is no legal way for the Vatican to enforce this rule. The Catholic religion is an idea not a leglal institution. These ideas are believed by those who want to believe them. We should be able to believe as we want to believe. So what is the problem? Only believers in this idea will be bound by it and they have a right to do so in a free society.
Bite me, Pope Jim
Comments on this entry are closed.