What Is Spirituality Copyright? (Solution found)

A spiritual successor is a work that is not an explicit sequel to a previous work, but has notable similarities to a prior work, wanting to evoke similarities to the predecessor work. Therefore, the first element of the infringement test is satisfied – there is a valid copyright to a sequel work.

What do experts define spirituality as?

  • Experts’ definitions of spirituality. Christina Puchalski, MD, Director of the George Washington Institute for Spirituality and Health, contends that “spirituality is the aspect of humanity that refers to the way individuals seek and express meaning and purpose and the way they experience their connectedness to the moment, to self, to others,

Can religion be copyrighted?

Religious copyright Thus, religious works are copyrighted in the same manner as any other type of work. Religions often claim that their works were created by God, higher powers, or divine beings. Works created by such beings are not eligible for copyright and churches can’t claim copyrights on their behalf.

Can God be copyrighted?

The Supreme Court has ruled that names of gods or holy books cannot be trademarked to sell goods and services. The answer to the question as to whether any person can claim the name of a holy or religious book as a trademark for goods or services marketed by him is clearly ‘no’,” said the bench.

Is Jesus copyrighted?

compiler’s own language, nevertheless qualifies as the author. Part V argues that Jesus Himself may be entitled to the copyright because He is the original author of the ideas that form the copyrighted material and because Jesus still lives13 and remains fully human.

What does the Bible say about copyright?

There is no such thing as a copyrighted version of the Bible. The scriptures, which include the Jewish Bible (written in Biblical Hebrew and in very few places, in Aramaic) and the New Testament (written in Ancient Greek) – cannot be copyrighted. These are ancient texts, over which no one can claim to have copyrights.

Are all Bibles copyrighted?

Originally Answered: Is the Bible copyrighted? Most translations of the Bible are old enough that they are out of copyright. As a general rule, every published work published before 1923 is out of copyright worldwide.

Does my church need a CCLI license?

If you are live streaming using YouTube or Facebook, the CCLI Church Copyright License is all that you need. You do not need another license from PRS. However, if you are streaming using another platform, then you also need the PRS Limited Online Music License (LOML).

Can prayers be copyrighted?

Prayers for the Rosary are also included in With God: A Book of Prayers and Reflections published in 1911 (Public Domain Mark 1.0). Catholic.org provides copyrighted prayers on the Beatitudes. The linked page also includes a list with links to 22 other “litanies prayers”.

Is Zeus copyrighted?

Zeus in and of himself isn’t copyrighted, no. He’s a god and a mythological character well over 3000 years old.

Is Aphrodite copyrighted?

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or fewer. The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that “faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain”.

Is the KJV Bible copyrighted?

The crown has a perpetual copyright on the King James Bible, through “letters patent” originally issued to stop unofficial editions and then to protect the country from ranters, shakers, Quakers, nonconformity and popery.

What versions of the Bible are not copyrighted?

The following Bibles in our library are in the public domain:

  • American Standard Version (ASV)
  • Darby Translation (DARBY)
  • Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
  • King James Version (KJV)
  • World English Bible (WEB)
  • Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
  • Reina-Valera Antigua (RVA)
  • Biblia Sacra Vulgata (VULGATE)

Who owns Bible rights?

No one owns publishing rights to the Bible. However, some publishers own the right to publish a specific translation of the Bible. For example, the Lockman Foundation owns the right to publish the New American Standard Bible.

Is copyright a sin?

, ordained priest in the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite. A sin is an action that is contrary to loving God or loving your neighbor (all of mankind) as yourself. If by infringing on a copyright you are behaving in a selfish and unloving way toward the owner of the copyright then you are committing a sin.

Do you need permission to quote the Bible?

The Bible you typically do not need permission to quote. If you quote from the King James Version (KJV), you’re unlikely to encounter any problems, as the translation was completed in 1611. It is also the most well know version of the Bible in English.

Is illegally downloading music a sin?

— If you mean is it a sin to illegally download music or videos from anywhere online then the answer is yes. If you are supposed to pay for it, and the author or artist intended you to pay for it, and it is through sales that artists and publishers are compensated, and you attempt to avoid it, then it is a sin.

Copyright on religious works – Wikipedia

When it comes to copyright on religious works, it is not always apparent who is the rightful owner of the rights. A copyright is awarded to the author upon the production of the work in accordance with the requirements of the Berne Convention. Several faiths assert that their writings (whether written or spoken) were authored (written or dictated) entirely or in part by their deity or gods.

Religious copyright

Religion does not get preferential treatment, either negatively or positively, when it comes to intellectual property rights in the majority of countries. As a result, religious works are protected by copyright in the same way that any other sort of work is. Because most of the world’s major religions have been practiced for more than a thousand years, their original scriptures are no longer available to the public. This includes religious texts such as the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, and the Bhagavad Gita, among others.

In the United Kingdom, the King James Version of the Bible is protected by royal copyright, which is known as crown copyright.

Scriptures of modern faiths are still protected by copyright, and certain religious groups, such as the Church of Scientology, are vigorous in their enforcement of these copyrights.

A common claim made by religious leaders is that their works were inspired by God, higher forces, or divine creatures.

Courts, on the other hand, have maintained such copyrights on the grounds that humans put forth sufficient creative effort into gathering these heavenly declarations to warrant ownership of a copyright.

Case law

Kristen Maaherra was sued by the Urantia Foundation in 1991 for illegal reproduction of portions of The Urantia Book. According to the representatives of the Urantia Foundation, the Papers of the Urantia Bookwere dictated to an unidentified sleeping subject (a human being) by celestial, unseen cosmic beings, and they, the Urantia Foundation, held the copyright in trust for the purpose of keeping the text “inviolate.” The court stated that in the case of Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, the court found that “We agree, however, that the copyright laws were not intended to protect creations of divine beings, and that in this case, some element of human creativity must have occurred in order for the Book to be protected by the copyright laws.

You might be interested:  What Was The Importance Of Spirituality Of Tenskwatawa To This Vision? (Question)

This was later overturned on the grounds that the Urantia Foundation was not the author, and that the sleeping subject, sometimes highly controversially referred to as an achanneler, was legally considered the author, and that the Urantia Foundation could not file a valid copyright renewal because the sleeping subject had not been legally considered the author.

A court declaration that the Urantia Foundation’s U.S.

As a result of the book’s classification as neither a composite work nor a commissioned production for hire, the Urantia Foundation’s copyright was declared to have expired in 1983.

court determined that, because the Conduit had died prior to 1983, only the Conduit’s heirs would have been eligible to renew the copyright in 1983, and that, because they had failed to do so, the Urantia Foundation’s copyright on the book had expired, and the book had therefore passed into the public domain.

A Course in Miracles

When the copyright owners of A Course in Miracles sued the New Christian Church of Full Endeavor for disseminating A Course in Miracles, a situation eerily identical to this one developed. The court determined that, notwithstanding the church’s claim to divine authorship, it nevertheless possessed a legitimate copyright as a result of the human role played in putting the components together into an unified work of art. In a case similar to this, the Ninth Circuit recently held that, notwithstanding the spiritual book’s “celestial” or “divine” origins, the originality requirement necessary for a valid copyright was satisfied because the human beings who “compiled, selected, coordinated, and arranged” the book did so “‘in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes a work of originality.’ ” The court wrote, paraphrasing from the above case: “In Although copyright on the published text was not sustained in the final verdict, which was issued in April 2004, it was determined that the first copies of ACIMwere circulated without a propercopyrightnotice, which was needed under US law at the time.

Church of Scientology

When it comes to performing religious duties such as evangelization, copyright law can make things more difficult. The desire to make religious works widely available for the purposes of evangelization may clash with the desire to obtain copyright protection and use it to prevent the production of unauthorized or altered versions of a text outside of the control the originating organization. One well-known example is the situation of certain documents, allegedly written by L. Ron Hubbard, that were never intended for distribution to the general public.

Scientology has utilized a variety of legal strategies since 1994 to try to prohibit unlawful third-party distribution of these publications by persons outside of the official hierarchy of the organization.

The internal description for this condition is “clear,” or having a state of “clearness,” and it results from a person’s religious observance being as meticulous as possible.

Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God

Immediately upon Herbert W. Armstrong’s death in 1986, church officials began to shift their emphasis away from Armstrong’s teachings and toward a more modern approach. Dissatisfied with these developments, some members created the Philadelphia Church of God, which was led by Gerald Flurry. By the middle of the twentieth century, most of Armstrong’s publications had been discredited by the WCG’s leadership and were no longer in print. PCG began reproducing and distributing several of Armstrong’s books in 1997, with the majority of them being given away for free.

See also

  • Intellectual Reserve, which owns the intellectual property of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  • Church of Spiritual Technology andReligious Technology Center, which owns the intellectual property of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard
  • Intellectual Reserve, which owns the intellectual property of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

References

  1. “Penguin Books vs. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor” is a battle between two publishing companies (PDF). The 16th Circuit Court of Appeals for the Southern District of New York issued its decision on June 16, 2007. On the 16th of June, 2007, the document was archived(PDF). “hayariki.com URANTIA FOUNDATION v. KRISTEN MAAHERRA,” retrieved on 2015-05-01
  2. “hayariki.com URANTIA FOUNDATION v. KRISTEN MAAHERRA.” hayariki.net. The original version of this article was published on August 6, 2016. “Untitled Document,” which was retrieved on 2016-08-04. 2005-10-26. The original version of this article was published on October 26, 2005. Michael Foundation, Inc. v. Urantia Foundation v. Harry McMullan, III,01-634701-6348(10th Cir. March 11, 2003)
  3. Michael Foundation, Inc. v. Urantia Foundation v. Harry McMullan, III,01-634701-6348(10th Cir. March 11, 2003)
  4. Michael Foundation, Inc. v. Urantia Foundation v. Harry Mc James Beverley and Beverley (2009-05-19). Nelson’s Illustrated Guide to Religions: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Religions of the World is a comprehensive introduction to the religions of the world. Thomas Nelson & Company, Inc., p. 397–. ISBN9781418577469. “Penguin Books vs. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor” (PDF).United States District Court Southern District of New York, April 6, 2008. Retrieved 4 July 2014. On April 6, 2008, the original version of this document was archived(PDF). Metz, Cade (2021-05-01)
  5. Retrieved2021-05-01
  6. (8 April 2008). “The Society for Science and the Public threatens Wikileaks with an injunction.” The Register is where it all begins. Retrieved on 2008-12-09
  7. COG Writer, Teachings Unique to the Philadelphia Church of God
  8. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Feature, published on September 26, 2000
  9. The Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. A case involving the WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD and the PHILADELPHIA CHURCH OF GOD
  10. Ruins are being raised by the ruinsby Chapter 24 of Stephen Flurry’s novel.
  • In the case of Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the Foundation.

Copyrights

in Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the Foundation.

The Spiritual Life: Copyrights

Intellectual Property Rights The Spiritual Life 2021 All Rights Reserved It is prohibited to reproduce, replicate, modify, or alter in any manner any of the files or material published on this Website or Blog without The Spiritual Life’s prior written consent. Our service marks or trademarks, as well as those of our affiliates or other firms, may appear on our website or blog in the form of words, graphics, and logos. Use of our Website, Blog, or Services does not grant you any right or license to use any of our service marks or trademarks without the express written approval of The Spiritual Life.

It is completely forbidden for you to copy, redistribute, use, or publish any of the Content on this site.

  • Articles that have been modified from Wikipedia See Wikipedia’s copyright policies for further information.
  • Paramus Publishing has granted permission to use articles by M. Fethullah Gulen and B. Said Nursi, as well as (from) Fountain Magazine.

Upon the effective date of this License Agreement (the “Effective Date”), the parties agree to the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement. The parties are Paramus Publishing (335, Clifton Avenue, Clifton, NJ 07011 (“Licensor”) and The Spiritual LifeLLC, Saylorsburg, PA (“Licensee”). See the Licensing Agreement for further information. Spiritual Life LLC is a limited liability company.

  • Articles taken from a variety of websites or digital books.

We have copied your work; if we have violated any copyright regulations, please notify us so that we may remove your items from our website.

  • Photographs used in The Spiritual Life were obtained from Pixabay.com.

We adhere to the terms of the Pixabay License. What exactly is permitted? Everything on Pixabay can be used for free for commercial and noncommercial purposes across print and digital platforms, with the exception of the circumstances listed under “What is not permitted.” It is not necessary to attribute the work. Giving credit to the contributor or to Pixabay is not required, however it is always appreciated by our community when done so. You have the ability to make changes to material from Pixabay.

This section solely applies to image users, not to the individuals who created the images in question.

Don’t sell images that haven’t been edited in any way.

It is not acceptable to represent identified persons in a negative light or in an offensive manner.

  • The following are examples of images used in The Spiritual Life from external sources:

We have copied your work; if we have violated any copyright regulations, please notify us so that we may remove your items from our website.

  • The design of our website was created using Hueman Pro 1.4.9, which we got from
You might be interested:  Why Is Spirituality In Palliative Care? (Perfect answer)

The Spiritual Life: Intellectual Property Rights

When does a spiritual successor become copyright infringement?

The construction of spiritual successors or tribute works has a unique set of obstacles in the realm of video game development.

Some of these works have been found to be infringing on intellectual property rights, while others have not. Take, for example, the 2014 game. As a result of the similarities between TxK and Artari’s classicTempest, TxK received a letter from Atari threatening legal action against him.

What is a spiritual successor?

In the case of an aspirational successor, a work that is not an explicit sequel to a previous work, but nevertheless has striking resemblances to a prior work in order to elicit associations with the preceding work. Spiritual successors, on the other hand, may be subject to legal consequences if they infringe on another’s intellectual property rights. Copyright infringement happens when a copyrighted piece of content is used without permission by someone who does not have the right to use the material.

  • v.
  • In the United States, the producers of an original work are known as copyright owners, and the United States Copyright Act grants copyright owners the exclusive right “to make derivative works based on the copyrighted work,” which includes sequels to previously published works (17 U.S.C.
  • The writers of an original work, such as the creators of theTempestvideo game, have the right to create a derivative sequel to that original work without permission.
  • There must be proof of copying in order to satisfy the second requirement.
  • The majority of the time, however, this may be established by circumstantial evidence that the third-party (1) had access to the work and (2) that there are convincing parallels between the original and substantial work to support the claim that it was copied.
  • Probable similarities aid in the demonstration that actual copying happened.
  • When two works are extremely similar, a court may infer that a third person had access to the works in question.

When does a spiritual successor become copyright infringement?

When comparing the original and tribute works, the issue arises as to whether the similarities between the two are so extensive that the subsequent work has duplicated parts that were previously developed by themselves. For example, in spiritual sequel video games, expressive components such as gameplay mechanics, characters, scenery, and plot might be lifted from the original game. The source code of the game, as well as the character names and backgrounds, as well as the complex setting, may all be copied directly.

The succeeding work must be a unique, self-contained effort that contributes something new and substantial.

Fans of Banjo-Kazooie, on the other hand, may experience a sense of nostalgia when playing the spiritual sequel — despite the fact that it is, in reality, an original work.

Successive writers, on the other hand, can have their own works if they separate themselves from one another without duplicating and produce something that is more than a “unofficial sequel.” Rachel Ann Stephens is a second-year law student at the University of North Carolina School of Law who has a particular interest in media law and its relationship with entertainment mediums such as cinema, television, and video games, among others.

“Ask a Priest: Am I sinning by viewing unauthorized copyright postings on the Internet?”

Q: As you are aware, there is a plethora of information available on the Internet. I occasionally look at items that have been posted, such as videos for work or for pleasure purposes, among other things. My query is directed at people who are putting this stuff on the internet. At times, I question whether or not they are not infringing on intellectual property rights when they post it, and whether or not I am committing a sin by seeing the content they upload. It happens from time to time that I have a legitimate suspicion that the person who posted it does not have the legal right to do so (for example, if their YouTube profile name does not sound like it belongs to an authorized copyright holder), but other times I am not so sure.

  • I was hoping you could shed some light on my responsibilities as a person who is attempting to live a Catholic life in the best way possible.
  • Fr.
  • Your specific topic pertains to a moral concept known as collaboration with evil, which is discussed in more detail below.
  • Many of us, even if we try to do good in the world, definitely participate with evil on a daily basis in some way.
  • With example, consider the situation of a lineman for a utility company who is assisting in the restoration of electricity to a neighborhood following a snowfall.
  • In the sense that he assisted in restoring the power that makes abortions possible, the lineman may be considered a remote participant in the abortions.
  • His goal was to execute his work well, to restore energy to houses and customers in need, and to earn a payment that would allow him to provide for his own family by keeping them fed and clothed.
  • It appears that your involvement with evil (in this example, the infringement of intellectual property rights) is, at the very least, indirect.
  • You also did not go looking for sites where you were aware that unlawfully uploaded information was being hosted.
  • So, what should we do?

The fact that you have discovered a site that appears to be respectable (for example, one that is run by an organization that appears to be legitimate and has a real mailing address) may allow you to proceed with viewing its content on the grounds that you are extending the site the benefit of the doubt.

  • In the alternative, it may get a complaint from a copyright owner.
  • There are billions of webpages on the Internet, and no one can guarantee that each and every one of them complies with copyright laws.
  • However, requiring browsers to have 100 percent assurance before viewing or listening to information they encounter on the Internet appears to be impracticable at this point.
  • Send a link to the item you discovered and inquire as to whether or not it was uploaded with permission.
  • (For more information on cooperating with evil, see this article on EWTN.) You may also think about the Golden Rule at this point.
  • As a seller of a video or audio program or a piece of software, how would you want other people to handle your intellectual property if your livelihood was dependent on it?

Allow that to serve as a guiding principle. I’ll say a prayer for you that the Holy Spirit will guide you in the right direction.

No spiritual copyrights

When we take a walk by the sea or hold a newborn in our arms, there is no doubt that there is a spiritual aspect to our existence. The challenge for mankind is to learn for ourselves in a gentle manner and then share what we have learned with others who come searching without resorting to turning it into a business. These principles are universally applicable. This fact is responsible for at least some of the difficulties encountered in organized spiritual philosophy. No one may claim ownership of another’s ability to connect with the holy.

The fact that they are not reproducible – even by the same individual under the same conditions – is the most compelling proof of this.

That requires us to simply be present in the time and experience the emotions that are present, welcome them, and be with them.

Others see this youngster as no more than another infant.

This little bundle of pink represents the happiness my great-grandmother felt when my father was born, the delight my grandmother felt when I was born, and the joy that my mother felt when my son was born, all of which are expressing themselves in this present moment and all of which are lying here, in my arms, in this bundle of pink.

  • I have learnt many amazing things on my spiritual metaphysical path – things for which I am eternally thankful and which I continue to implement in my daily life.
  • It is my belief that there is a positive force at work in the cosmos.
  • I’ve discovered that when we share the lessons we’ve learned about the spiritual side of life with openness and generosity, we “show” more goodness in our own lives than when we keep them to ourselves.
  • I am a firm believer that groups of individuals who have a similar life attitude and perspective may reap significant benefits from getting together for support, companionship, and fellowship.
  • Individuals who have the opportunity to exercise control over others tend to exhibit their worst characteristics, and the amount of money that is associated with obtaining a footing in the hierarchy raises a lot of ethical concerns.
  • There is no requirement to pay a fee, enroll in a class, or make a donation to a certain organization.
  • Listed below are three steps you may take to get started: 1.
  • Every day, learn three new things.
  • 3.
  • This may entail monetary compensation, but it might also involve time, attention, attitude, or other factors.
  • That is all there is to it.

Start today by getting up and going outside, and then open your arms to receive all of the good that life has in store for you. Yes, there will be awful days and difficult times thrown in for good measure. Accept this and continue your search for the good. (C) 2021 Practitioner’s Path – Best Wishes

The Spirituality Revolution: The Emergence of Contemporary Spirituality

1st printing of the book 2004 is the year of the copyright.

You might be interested:  How Does Spirituality Help You? (Solution)

The Spirituality Revolution: The Emergence of Contemporary Spirituality

A person’s spiritual life is no longer considered to be a specialized concern, reserved for adherents of specific religious traditions. The spirituality revolution is a spontaneous movement in society that has sparked a large new interest in the truth of spirituality and its therapeutic benefits on one’s life, health, community, and overall well-being, among other things. The Spirituality Revolution: The Awakening of Contemporary Spirituality is a book on the emergence of contemporary spirituality.

The current state of the Western experience of spirit, our need for spiritual guidance when we are unable to turn to organized religion in its traditional forms, and the creative potentials of spirit in education, personal experience, contemporary philosophy, and popular feeling for the environment are just a few of the topics covered.

It is a much-needed contribution to the area, and it will be of particular interest to analytical psychologists, counselors, educators, and social workers, as well as to anybody who is interested in spirituality and the future of religion in general.

He is the author of six works on spirituality, psychology, and culture, the most recent of which are Jung and the New Age and Remaking Men, respectively.

Table of Contents

A person’s spiritual life is no longer considered to be a specialized issue, reserved for adherents of particular religious denominations or traditions. The spirituality revolution is a spontaneous movement in society that has sparked a large new interest in the truth of spirituality and its therapeutic benefits on one’s life, health, community, and overall well-being and well-being. In this chapter, we will discuss the Spirituality Revolution, as well as the emergence of modern spirituality.

A new generation of scientific discoveries in physics and biology as well as psychology and ecology have begun to restore credibility to previously discredited spiritual visions of reality, and this book illustrates the various ways in which we might discover a universal spiritual wisdom that could transform our splintered world.

The Spirituality Revolution tackles a key societal issue that demands immediate attention if we are to respond imaginatively to the spiraling outbreaks of sadness, suicide, addiction, and psychological suffering that have occurred in recent years.

David Tacey is an Associate Professor of Psychoanalytic Studies at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, as well as a Reader in Arts and Critical Inquiry at the same institution.

He is the author of six works on spirituality, psychology, and culture, the most recent of which are Jung and the New Age and Remaking Men, among others.

Reviews

A book can occasionally be recommended without reservation,’ says the author. This is an example of such a book. It is extraordinarily brilliant, accessible, topical, and full of promise, to say the least. This book alone is worth the price of admission because of Tacey’s mature comments on fundamentalism, the relationship between wholeness and perfection, the distinction between spirituality and spiritualism, and his entire critique of contemporary religion (which is concentrated primarily on Christianity), which are so succinctly and reasonably put.

Art, God and Copyright

Consider what would have happened if the Sermon on the Mount had been protected by copyright legislation.or if Moses had required advance permission before anyone could copy the Ten Commandments. Is it possible that they would have gained widespread popularity and become the religious icons that they have become? The proponents of copyright frequently assert that it is the most effective means of encouraging and disseminating innovation. However, by a strange coincidence, I’ve come across two stories in the last week that demonstrate how the market-based paradigm of copyright law is stifling religiously inspired creativity.

  • These two cases demonstrate that copyright law is not a natural, inevitability-based system for regulating culture; rather, it is a belief-system every bit as powerful as Christianity or Islam.
  • Charlyn W contributed this photo, which was shared on Flickr and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
  • The quality and distinctiveness of the designs, on the other hand, have attracted imitators, a development that has prompted Indonesian trade officials to request that the artists register their works as trademarks.
  • Here’s the man-eats-dog twist: the Solo artists don’t want their designs to be copied or reproduced without their permission.
  • To claim ownership of the designs would be a display of egotistical arrogance, and it might even be considered blasphemous.
  • Because so many designers are reluctant to have their names associated with their batik creations, the designs are only known by their motif titles.
  • A small number of artists acknowledge their work while requesting only a limited amount of publicity from the authorities.
  • A tourism official in Solo is concerned that his town’s traditional ways of thinking — such as the belief that God is a serious source of inspiration for batik design — are at risk of being undermined in this age of global market competition.
  • The conundrum is that the artists believe that if they copyright their designs, they would be betraying the divine source of their inspiration.
  • This story, in my opinion, highlights the need for Indonesian batik designers to create their own design equivalent of the General Public License, which is used by software developers.
  • This would prevent commercial appropriation while also allowing for the free use of the designs as long as they were used for noncommercial purposes and freely shared with others under the same conditions as before.

The painting “Basket of Apples,” by an unknown artist(s) from the Shaker Community in Hancock, Massachusetts, graces the cover of Lewis Hyde’s wonderful book, The Gift:Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property(this is the original subtitle, which I prefer), and is featured on the back cover of the book.

Individuals who worked hard to improve their ability to receive songs, dances, paintings, and other forms of art were referred to as “laboring for a gift,” and the works that they produced were distributed as gifts within the community.

In time, a faction within that community decided to publish the book on its own, in its own way — resulting in the other group claiming ownership of the holy book as their own.

It is difficult to serve a summons on God and compel Him to testify.

Except that spiritual seekers rarely resort to Caesar’s law to enforce their “rights.” The true believers tend to eschew legalisms (recall the parables of Jesus with the lawyers) (recall the parables of Jesus with the lawyers).

For human law, however, jurisdiction must first be established.

Should it be ethically and legally acceptable to copy the sermons of another minister from the Internet?

Some are free, some require subscriptions of $21.95 a month to search and download from an archive of more than 20,000 sermons.

Attribution is one thing — an ethical nod of respect to the (human) creator and a humility that it “originated” elsewhere.

We need to ask, therefore: Does copyrighting a sermon truly enhance its dissemination in this age of instant Internet access?

TheStar Tribunenoted, “The notion of preachers ‘borrowing’ material from one another is as old as preaching itself.

Dave Ridder of St.

Paul. Moreover, ministers whose works are copied aren’t likely to complain. They’re flattered. Still, it drives the guardians of market culture mad, simply mad, to think that somewhere, somehow, someone is getting something of value for free. Funny thing…. there’s a term for that:Amazing Grace.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *