Official Church Logo . . .

[mfbukowski]

No commercial gain. Therefore, non-commercial.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh STOP IT!!!!!!! I'm going to wet myself! You've NEVER presented your personal opinions as teaching or doctrines of the church?!?!?! What about all that nonsense concerning the unpardonable laundry list of sins?

HeeeHeeeeHeeeHeee... you should send THAT posting to the church and tell them you are an active member and will be using the logo to represent yourself on internet message boards...

Oh I'm sore from all the laughter.

H.

I, mfbukowski actually gave YOU, LDSToronto, a rep point for that one. Will wonders never cease?

[kolipoki09]

I'm not familiar with this particular case, but it should be noted that "criticism" is a fair-use.

From the Church's website:

All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, media, and general information), is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use unless otherwise indicated. In addition, materials may be reproduced by media personnel for use in traditional public news forums unless otherwise indicated. You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to other sites. You may not use this site or information found at this site (including the names and addresses of those who submitted information) for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site, including reproduction. It is not our responsibility, however, to determine what "Fair Use" means for persons wishing to use materials from this site. That remains wholly a responsibility of the user. Further, we are not required to give additional source citations, nor to guarantee that the materials are cleared for alternate uses. Such ultimately remains the responsibility of the user. However, the Church maintains the right to prevent infringement of its materials and to interpret "Fair Use" as it understands the law.

In most cases, the Hulses are not critiquing the actual image itself (which would then fall under the comment/criticism of Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976). Suppose then, that I use an alarming quotation from Brigham Young regarding blacks and the Priesthood, and then couple that quotation with a copyrighted image from lds.org showing two black Mormon missionaries. It is one thing to use a partial quotation for non-commerical purposes. It is entirely different to use a copyrighted work in its complete form.

[Scott Lloyd]

A parable:

My neighbor has a trampoline in his backyard. I'm a schoolboy who notices that many of the neighborhood kids are often in his backyard using the trampoline. From this, I assume that there is an unspoken, open invitation for anyone to come over at will and use the tramp. I get in the habit of doing so every day after school.

At length, I learn that, for reasons of potential liability, undue wear-and-tear on the facility, and perhaps other factors, it is not OK with him that the kids come into his yard unbidden to use the trampoline. In fact, I notice he has posted signs strictly forbidding anyone from doing so without first securing his permission for each and every instance that they use the tramp.

Whereas before, I might be excused for my actions because I was unaware of his desires in the matter and, after all, a lot of people seemed to be doing it unhindered, now I am faced with some ethical accountability.

I can continue using the tramp without permission, reasoning that others still are doing it and that his reasons for prohibiting it seem silly and useless to me. If he wants me to stop, let him come tell me personally.

Or, I can recognize his position as property owner and abide by his wishes

[Scott Lloyd]

I do see the distinction and fully understand the Church's position. They don't want every Tom, ****, and Harry to represent themselves (purposefully or inadvertently) as being official Church reps.

Every company, Church, or organization needs to protect its IP -- a logo being part of that IP.

Having said that, and assuming Analytics' story to be fully accurate, I do find it a little unsettling that the Church (or any organization for that matter) would threaten lawsuits in a situation where "fair use" applies.

They shouldn't have to. Ideally, people of good will should recognize on their own a property owner's rights and respect them

[mfbukowski]

To me, it's just a matter of ethics. Do you uphold the law or not?

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been to numerous Church functions where Church members were acting in violation of Church teachings. Obviously not to the degree of murder, but I still don't think "acting in violation of Church teachings" alone can classify an event as a non-Church activity when other indicators would indicate that it is.

"Numerous Church functions" were they? Sorry, this doesn't ring true to me.

And it doesn't square with my experience. I don't recall a single Church function where I have witnessed an obvious violation of Church values, or where such violation would have been allowed to continue unabated.

And even if it had, I refuse to accept on principle the notion that the Church as an institution bears accountability for what one or more of its members may do in contradiction of what the Church expressly teaches.

[mfbukowski]

Remove the logo before you post again.

This appears to have 86'd 86

[sethpayne]

They shouldn't have to. Ideally, people of good will should recognize on their own a property owner's rights and respect them

But that is my point, Scott. The law clearly allows for the "fair use" of intellectual property in a very limited and clearly defined sense.

If someone is observing "fair use" laws, they are recognizing property rights as defined by law. That any organization would use lawsuits to squash "fair use" is troubling to me -- be it a Church, charity, or corporation.

[Scott Lloyd]

This appears to have 86'd 86

He faces a dilemma: remove the logo or don't post again.

We'll know if and when it happens, as removal or replacement of avatars applies retroactively to all prior posts.

By the way, just so we're all clear, this directive from the moderators did not result from any complaint to them on my part.

[Scott Lloyd]

But that is my point, Scott. The law clearly allows for the "fair use" of intellectual property in a very limited and clearly defined sense.

If someone is observing "fair use" laws, they are recognizing property rights as defined by law. That any organization would use lawsuits to squash "fair use" is troubling to me -- be it a Church, charity, or corporation.

There are many things allowed by law that ought not to be done.

But if a lawsuit is brought and a court or jury finds that an action was not fair use, then it is, by legal definition, not fair use. Right?

In any event, an aggrieved party has the right to put the matter to the test in a court of law.

[sethpayne]

There are many things allowed by law that ought not to be done.

So quoting a snippet from a book/movie/magazine article "should not be done?" That would make writing any type of academic writing pretty difficult.

But if a lawsuit is brought and a court or jury finds that an action was not fair use, then it is, by legal definition, not fair use. Right?

Of course. No argument here. What I'm referring to is the threat of lawsuit. Unfortunately in our legal system those with the deepest pockets can drag this out until the little guy can't continue. Again, I'm not saying this is what the Church did to Analytics as I don't know any details of this particular case but I do know from personal experience -- when a friend posted a 10 second South Park clip on his website; from my understanding a clip length well within the bounds of "fair use" -- Viacom threatened to sue him. He does not have the money to fight Viacom so even though he probably would have won any lawsuit, he couldn't afford to defend himself and thus it was easier to take the 10 second clip down.

In any event, an aggrieved party has the right to put the matter to the test in a court of law.

Quite true. But bringing suit or defending oneself in court is not cheap. Thus, threats against so-called "little guys" often work.

[Scott Lloyd]

So quoting a snippet from a book/movie/magazine article "should not be done?" That would make writing any type of academic writing pretty difficult.

That, of course, isn't what I'm saying. I'm speaking to the general principle that, just because the law allows something, that doesn't automatically make it decent or ethical. As an example, is sophistry vilifying the Church of Jesus Christ legal? In most cases yes. Is it decent? Hardly.

Quite true. But bringing suit or defending oneself in court is not cheap.

That has been a problem from the days of Joseph Smith and, I have no doubt, long before that. "Vexatious lawsuits," a term one occasionally finds in the Prophet's words and writings, was (and, I believe, still is) a recognized legal term to refer to litigation devoid of merit that is brought merely for the purpose of harassment.

But getting back to the point of the thread, I don't see how this argues against the prerogative of the Church to protect its intellectual property.

[Pahoran]

If you are familiar with those old pastel discussions, what I quoted was the left-hand column of the left page, where each principle of each discussion had the verbiage of what the missionaries were supposed to teach. The website was probably about 10% quotations of missionary discussions and 90% commentary on what they said. It was non-profit, and clearly was fair use.

Yes, I'm sure your description of your position is every bit as honest and impartial as your URL. Because, after all, we all know that your website, "LDS4U," really was intended to encourage people to listen to what the missionaries had to say, wasn't it?

In fact "Analytics," as you and I both know, the relevant pages quoted wholesale from the missionary discussions, and the "90% commentary on what they said" was a busybody attempt to poison the well against the missionaries by "explaining" the discussions in terms intended to prejudice your audience against the Church.

And that's your idea of "fair use."

The Church absolutely did the right thing.

And the only reason they had to was because you can't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Of course it does.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto were riding through a canyon one day when suddenly about fifty Indians appeared in front of them, with war-paint on and armed to the teeth. The Lone Ranger and Tonto turned their horses around to try to escape, and about seventy Indians came up behind them. They looked up at the sides of the canyon, and saw about two hundred Indians on both sides. Then the Lone Ranger said, "Looks like we've had it this time, Tonto."

And Tonto said, "Who 'we,' paleface?"

Given how easy it is to join the Church; to leave the Church; to simply stop participating without formally withdrawing; to remain a nominally active member without actually sustaining the leadership of the Church; I suggest that it is rather simplistic, and not at all meaningful, to suggest that "we are the LDS Church" as meaning "the Church == all the members."

Rather, I suggest that that "we" should represent "we who sustain the leaders and mean it."

And by meaning it, I propose that that would include accepting that the institutional Church holds property, both real and intellectual, which we individual members are not entitled to appropriate or act as if it was our own.

The policy, as outlined in the Church's official handbook, in no way implies a threat of legal action. It simply creates the very reasonable expectation that we who purport to be members of the Church will respect the right of the Church as an institution to hold such property and retain it to its exclusive use.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course it does.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto were riding through a canyon one day when suddenly about fifty Indians appeared in front of them, with war-paint on and armed to the teeth. The Lone Ranger and Tonto turned their horses around to try to escape, and about seventy Indians came up behind them. They looked up at the sides of the canyon, and saw about two hundred Indians on both sides. Then the Lone Ranger said, "Looks like we've had it this time, Tonto."

And Tonto said, "Who 'we,' paleface?"

Given how easy it is to join the Church; to leave the Church; to simply stop participating without formally withdrawing; to remain a nominally active member without actually sustaining the leadership of the Church; I suggest that it is rather simplistic, and not at all meaningful, to suggest that "we are the LDS Church" as meaning "the Church == all the members."

Rather, I suggest that that "we" should represent "we who sustain the leaders and mean it."

And by meaning it, I propose that that would include accepting that the institutional Church holds property, both real and intellectual, which we individual members are not entitled to appropriate or act as if it was our own.

The policy, as outlined in the Church's official handbook, in no way implies a threat of legal action. It simply creates the very reasonable expectation that we who purport to be members of the Church will respect the right of the Church as an institution to hold such property and retain it to its exclusive use.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran, there are times when I wish I was allowed more than one rep point vote. This is one of those occasions. Bravo.

[frankenstein]

In any event, an aggrieved party has the right to put the matter to the test in a court of law.

An aggrieved party must put forth a good faith argument that the law is on their side. I posted 9seconds of a South Park episode on youtube, the 9seconds were "Anyone who thinks 911 was a conspiracy is a retard", I received a copyright violation notice form Google, I informed Google that 9 seconds of video used a commentary is clearly within Section 107 (Fair Use). The attorney or legal entity which filed the claim with Google was not acting in good faith to the least degree. And though whoever from the McConkie firm made the statement that the claim was made in good faith against analytics, I doubt the honesty of the person in making the statement in that instance.

And by meaning it, I propose that that would include accepting that the institutional Church holds property, both real and intellectual, which we individual members are not entitled to appropriate or act as if it was our own.

Regards,

Pahoran

And as members and law abiding citizens, we can act fully within the law and use copyright material. I wonder how many Temple Rec. holding LDS Members recorded General Conference even after hearing the statement in the beginning about not recording it, AND without knowing the CHI permits recording of General Conference. Or how many people photo copy hymns.

As for analytics web page, there is no economic loss to the Church for having "busbody" commentary on the discussions, even when portions of the discussions are quoted verbatim. the copyright laws are very clear that a person does not need permission to use materials when making commentary on the copyright materials.

In fact "Analytics," as you and I both know, the relevant pages quoted wholesale from the missionary discussions, and the "90% commentary on what they said" was a busybody attempt to poison the well against the missionaries by "explaining" the discussions in terms intended to prejudice your audience against the Church.

And that's your idea of "fair use."

Regards,

Pahoran

commentary, good or bad, is exactly what Fair Use is for.

[sethpayne]

But getting back to the point of the thread, I don't see how this argues against the prerogative of the Church to protect its intellectual property.

I agree with you. The Church should protect its IP vigorously.

[Garden Girl]

True to form, LDS Guy plods ahead with his own point of view, peppered with such descriptions of "outhouse lawyers" and "outhouse crap" in regard to copyright... even against more logical and ethical responses.

As an artist, and a victim of copyright infringement, I feel strongly about copyright protection. When I had my greeting card company, I featured "Oregon Coast Scenes" using photography by both my husband and me. Imagine my surprise one day to open the local newspaper to the front page and see one of my photographs enlarged on the front page, giving photo-credit to a staff photographer. The image was one my best... I immediately gathered up samples of my greeting cards including the one featuring the photo (complete with my business logo), my negative of the photo, and headed to the newspaper office. I asked to speak to the manager, showed him the front page photo (1/2 of page with the credit given to the newspaper), and then my card and negative. When I showed him my card he said... Oh, you have our photo... I said, No, you have my photo, and showed him my negative. Turns out a newspaper employee who used to work at the photo company where I would get duplicates made, took the photo from the file and passed it off as his own.

Well, needless to say the newspaper manager, well aware of copyright law, backed off immediately... and was much relieved when I told him I would not press charges if he would see that it never happened again. Of course he agreed.

LDS Guy can say what he wants about copyright law, but loopholes (and there aren't as many as he makes out) or not, it's all we artists have to protect our work from misuse or misrepresentation... and the same goes for copyright for businesses and corporations.

GG

[Pahoran]

And as members and law abiding citizens, we can act fully within the law and use copyright material. I wonder how many Temple Rec. holding LDS Members recorded General Conference even after hearing the statement in the beginning about not recording it, AND without knowing the CHI permits recording of General Conference. Or how many people photo copy hymns.

As members of the Church in good standing, we are expected to do better than merely keep to the minimal standards of behaviour represented by avoiding the prohibitions of secular law.

Incidentally, most hymns are allowed to be photocopied.

As for analytics web page, there is no economic loss to the Church for having "busbody" commentary on the discussions, even when portions of the discussions are quoted verbatim. the copyright laws are very clear that a person does not need permission to use materials when making commentary on the copyright materials.

He wasn't merely quoting "portions," he was quoting wholesale. The Church may not suffer economic loss, but the purpose of his anti-Mormon well-poisoning was to put people off hearing the missionaries and/or joining the Church.

Those who sustain the mission of the Church find such behaviour inconscionable. How about you?

It's my understanding that "Fair use" attaches to excerpts, not entire documents.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

And as members and law abiding citizens, we can act fully within the law and use copyright material.

I think you've missed Pahoran's point here. Comprehending Latter-day Saints who sustain the leadership of the Church will for that reason alone abide by the policy of the Church in this and other matters.

I wonder how many Temple Rec. holding LDS Members recorded General Conference even after hearing the statement in the beginning about not recording it, AND without knowing the CHI permits recording of General Conference. Or how many people photo copy hymns.

Not sure I get your point here. Are you saying that the fact a lot of people do something automatically makes it right?

[mfbukowski]

He faces a dilemma: remove the logo or don't post again.

We'll know if and when it happens, as removal or replacement of avatars applies retroactively to all prior posts.

By the way, just so we're all clear, this directive from the moderators did not result from any complaint to them on my part.

I suspect we are about to be joined by a very opinionated newbie soon.

[Scott Lloyd]

True to form, LDS Guy plods ahead with his own point of view, peppered with such descriptions of "outhouse lawyers" and "outhouse crap" in regard to copyright... even against more logical and ethical responses.

As an artist, and a victim of copyright infringement, I feel strongly about copyright protection. When I had my greeting card company, I featured "Oregon Coast Scenes" using photography by both my husband and me. Imagine my surprise one day to open the local newspaper to the front page and see one of my photographs enlarged on the front page, giving photo-credit to a staff photographer. The image was one my best... I immediately gathered up samples of my greeting cards including the one featuring the photo (complete with my business logo), my negative of the photo, and headed to the newspaper office. I asked to speak to the manager, showed him the front page photo (1/2 of page with the credit given to the newspaper), and then my card and negative. When I showed him my card he said... Oh, you have our photo... I said, No, you have my photo, and showed him my negative. Turns out a newspaper employee who used to work at the photo company where I would get duplicates made, took the photo from the file and passed it off as his own.

Well, needless to say the newspaper manager, well aware of copyright law, backed off immediately... and was much relieved when I told him I would not press charges if he would see that it never happened again. Of course he agreed.

LDS Guy can say what he wants about copyright law, but loopholes (and there aren't as many as he makes out) or not, it's all we artists have to protect our work from misuse or misrepresentation... and the same goes for copyright for businesses and corporations.

GG

Kudos to you for protecting your rights.

I wonder what happened to the employee. Where I work that would be grounds for dismissal.

[frankenstein]

I think you've missed Pahoran's point here. Comprehending Latter-day Saints who sustain the leadership of the Church will for that reason alone abide by the policy of the Church in this and other matters.

so now your passing judgment on those who do not agree with your (mostly likely biased -due to your employment with in the media industry) opinion?

He wasn't merely quoting "portions," he was quoting wholesale. The Church may not suffer economic loss, but the purpose of his anti-Mormon well-poisoning was to put people off hearing the missionaries and/or joining the Church. Those who sustain the mission of the Church find such behaviour inconscionable. How about you?

It's my understanding that "Fair use" attaches to excerpts, not entire documents.

Regards,

Pahoran

You seem opposed to well poisoning against the Church. Well poisoning has little or no bearing concerning a Fair Use claim, as Fair Use is intended to allow commentary - good or bad, so as a Freedom loving American, I support the right of Free Speech, I also support people acting in good faith when it comes to claiming the law is on a persons side, so I try to live my life as Voltaire and with the counsel giving to Mr. Roper by Moore in "A Man For All Seasons" .

As for "portion" or "whole" the amount used is a consideration, but not a determining factor. Trouble with Fair Use is that there is little to no case law to explain what means what.

For instance as for portion or whole, look up the band "Apologetix" on youtube, in all sincerity I think you would enjoy their music. That band takes another musicians music and rewrites the lyrics to be "Christian"; Apologetix does so legally and without having to get permission. Same for Weird Al.

[emeliza]

That band takes another musicians music and rewrites the lyrics to be "Christian"; Apologetix does so legally and without having to get permission. Same for Weird Al.

I don't know about Apologetix, but Weird Al gets permission, whether it is needed or not, I don't know.

From Wikipedia:

Under the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law, affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, one does not need permission to record a parody.[49] However, as a personal rule, and as a means of maintaining good relationships within the music community, Yankovic has always requested permission from the original artist before recording his parodies.[8] Also, according to Stanford Libraries, fair use is unlikely to justify a parody song that parodies more than a few lines of song lyrics from an existing song.[50] Most artists have had positive reactions to Yankovic's parodies. Several have considered it to be something of a badge of honor to have Yankovic ask permission to parody their song or style, since they felt that Yankovic would not choose to do so unless they were a success or had made some sort of cultural impact at the time. However, there are a few notable exceptions where people have not allowed parodies or have otherwise withdrawn permission.

Edit: Probably not meaningful, but it was about the only thing on the thread that I have knowledge on.

Opinion though is that the Church is not wrong in asking people not to use their official logo on things that aren't endorsed by them.

[Analytics]

Yes, I'm sure your description of your position is every bit as honest and impartial as your URL. Because, after all, we all know that your website, "LDS4U," really was intended to encourage people to listen to what the missionaries had to say, wasn't it?

It was intended for them to think about it, more than simply to listen.

In fact "Analytics," as you and I both know, the relevant pages quoted wholesale from the missionary discussions, and the "90% commentary on what they said" was a busybody attempt to poison the well against the missionaries by "explaining" the discussions in terms intended to prejudice your audience against the Church.

It’s cute how you conflate knowledge with prejudice. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to go from “analytics quoted the church’s official teachings so extensively it was an alleged copyright violation” to “analytics was attempting to prejudice his audience against the church.”

And that's your idea of "fair use."

My idea of fair use is the legal definition of it.

The Brenan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law published a little book entitled Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control. According to this book,

“Fair use” is a crucial part of our copyright system. It allows any of us to quote and reproduce parts – or sometimes all – of copyrighted works, if the use advances creativity and democratic discussion. There are similar free expression safeguards in trademark law. Together, they assure that the owners of “intellectual property” cannot close down the free exchange of ideas.

These safeguards in our copyright and trademark systems are at risk today. Threatening “cease and desist” letters cause many people to give up their fair use rights. Even more troublesome are “take-down” notices sent by copyright owners to Internet service providers, which pressure them to remove online speech without any court having ruled that it is illegal.

The book goes on to give several case studies of the chilling effects associated with corporations stifling free speech. If you go down to page 42 (in the section Strong or Reasonable Defenses), they give their point of view on how your Church tried to stifle the free exchange of ideas in this case.

Here's a link to the book: http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/8769.pdf

About a year ago, I happened to be talking with a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property and mentioned my story. She laughed and got a little angry at me for taking the discussions down: according to her, what I did was clearly covered by fair use.

But I’ll tell you what. If you insist that my use of the missionary discussions was illegal, I’ll go ahead and restore the website to its former state. I’ll notify the church’s attorneys that I’m doing so, that I believe that it is fair use, and that if they disagree, we can go to court and have a judge decide.

It would be quite the news story: the Mormon church suing somebody for describing their teachings so precisely accurate that its an alleged copyright violation.