Copyright Law

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE #1:  In the following discussion, I will not be giving specific legal advice as any specific application of the law.  Copyright law is complex, with numerous exceptions that may apply in limited circumstances.  For specific advice, one should seek advice from  someone who is competent to provide such advice.  I do not consider myself to be competent to give such specific advice.  

NOTE #2:  In a prior life, I was regularly publishing material that was protected by provisions of the applicable copyright law.  Sometimes the material that I published required me to obtain permission from the owner of the copyrighted material.  At other times I was not required to obtain such permission  as my publication came under provisions of the "fair use" doctrine.  As the law is complex, there were times when I published material under "fair use" provisions that did NOT apply to the general public, but did apply to the circumstances under which I was publishing them.  In that position, I had access to competent legal help and my decisions were informed by  such advice.

During this period of time, I occasionally became aware of people who had published SDA material that was protected by copyright law.  I brought those situations to the attention of the appropriate SDA organizations that had copyrighted the material for possible action on their part. Below, I will list two (2) examples.  Both of those examples did NOT involve any provisions of the copyright law that did not apply to the general public.

My question to you reading this post is:  Were either, or both of these examples legal or were either or both of them illegal and why?

1)  A Protestant evangelist published a SDA time chart in a manner that supported the views of the evangelist.  In doing so, he made substantial changes to the material that he published.  He digitally reversed the image.  In addition he made substantial changes  to the written material that explained the time chart.

2)  A national column was published in news media across the United States, on a weekly basis.  From 50% to 75% of the time each contained a fully reproduced work of art that was protected by copyright that had been obtained by a SDA organization.   In published comments on that work of art, the author made fun of it and what it represented.  Was this legal and allowed by copyright law.  Or, was it illegal.  Why?

I will give you the answers that SDA lawyers gave to the SDA organizations that held the copyrights to the above material, after I have given you a chance to tell us what you think.

NOTE:  Stan may know the answers to the above  questions as he has to deal with copyright law in his job.  I suggest that he not give thee above answers.  In addition, U.S. copyright law probably differs to some extent with Canadian copyright law.  My questions involve the perspective of U.S. copyright law.

. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I will give you a  bit of help.  The following are the copyrigthtr issues involved in each of hte above:

#1:  

a)  The time chart was a work of art.

b)  I am often told that a work of art, may be copied, if major changes are made to that work of art.  

c)  Did the digital reversal of the image and the changes in the written discussion of the chart constitute "fair use" of the material?

#2:

a)  Again, this was clearly a work of art.

b)  The work of art was copied in full without change.  It was not a publication of a brief part of the copyrighted material.

c)  Did the written material that made fun of the work of art constitute "fair use" of the entire work of art?

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Giving credit to the original source is an ethical issue.  It may (sometimes) not be a legal issue.

Under the copyright law, outside of "fair use", it may be illegal to quote.

As an example:  A work of art, such as a statute, may be copyrighted.  When such is placed in public view, it may (sometimes) be illegal for a person to photograph that statute.  There are examples where this has been enforced.

Folks, the law is complex.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

To help in understanding the issues with copyright, from the perspective of U.S. law, I will make some comments that should be considered to be of a general nature:

*  Copyright is not restricted to commercial use.  It covers non-commercial use.

*  However, commercial use of such material may impact on how large a judgment one may obtain.

*  "Fair use" provisions not available to the general public exist for:

a)  The Federal government.

b)  Educational institutions.

c)  Public libraries--not your personal library.   :) 

*  The law establishes the time when a copyright comes into effect.

*  Under the law, a copyright can only be enforced after certain conditions have been met.  IOW, a copyright may exist prior to it being enforceable.

NOTE:  In my next post, I will give a couple of examples that I have actually experienced.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

#1:  As a military chaplain assigned in Korea, I pastored a Protestant congregation.  Each week, I wrote a responsive reading for the congregation that was about 50% my writing and 50% quoted from a new version of the Bible that I liked.  I decided that I needed to obtain permission to use the Biblical quotes, so I requested such from the publisher.  I was granted permission, subject to certain restrictions, one of which was to send the publisher a copy of every responsive reading that I had written.  So, each week I mailed such to the publisher.  At a latera a number of months, the publisher got tired of my weekly submissions.  The publisher of the Bible changed their requirements for such use by pastors in church congregations.

#2:  As a member of the teaching faculty of the U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School, I taught classes of students that numbered as many as 150.   I used a lot of material, as handouts for  required reading, that I got from other sources. Sometimes I had to request permission to publish them and sometimes I did not have to hae permission.  I had to know the difference.  

a)  On one occasion the holder of the copyright restricted me to the number of copies that I could make and in addition limited my use to a specific time period.  I complied as that was their right to place those restrictions on me.

b)  On another occasion a high-ranking military officer, not a SDA, gave an off-the-record speech to a very small group of people.   Someone recorded it and attempted to transcribe the speech.  actually the transcription was a poor copy.  I wanted to print it and distribute it  in my classes.  I knew that the military officer would not w ant to be quoted in some of the statements that he made.  So, I re-wrote it to remove material that I felt he would not w ant quoted.  He returned it to me with additional changes that he wanted made in the article.  That was his right.  AT this point it became a new article of his and it was no longer a transcript of his speech.  So, I published it as he had changed it and distributed it in my classes.  This was both ethical and legal.

The point that I want to make here is:  Regardless of the legality of publishing material, sometimes ethics says we do not do so without permission.  The Christian life is more than mere legality.  It involves ethics

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I think that I will give you teh answer to  the questions that I raised in the opening post:

#1:  The non-SDA evangelist who used SDA material after making major changes in the material:

Answer:  It issue is not involved with the changes that he made, contrary to what some people would believe.  Copyright law may apply to portions of the material that someone else produced.  It does not just apply to the entire work.  The evangelist ws in violation of the law.  The SDA denomination immediately entered into a dialogue with him.  An agreement was reach in which he would never ag ain use sDA material without obtaining permission to do so,.

 

#2:  The person who wrote a weekly column weekly in which  he often reproduced in full SDA art work which he made fun of.

Answer:  HIs doing was permitted under the "Fair Use" doctrine.   The SDA Church had no cause for action against him.  The only course of action that the Church had was to contact the newspaper  that published his column and attempt to persuade them not to publish it.  Shortly thereafter, teh newspaper ceased to publish his column.