Does anyone see anything that states a copyright on the documents issued by the International Theological Commission? I have looked high and low with no luck. I have seen that papal documents carry a copyright, but these are not papal documents.
Does anyone see anything that states a copyright on the documents issued by the International Theological Commission?
They're under copyright whether they state so or not. What you need is an explicit statement that they're waiving their copyright. Sorry.
Thanks fgh. Where does it state this/their policy?
It's what international copyright law says.
My understanding is that internaitonal copyright law stipulates the agreements on how, how long, etc. the right of the author and author's countries are protected. It does not add new rights to the intellectual property that were not established. If true, this points back to what does the Vatican say about these documents.
It does not add new rights to the intellectual property that were not established.
You don't need to "establish" any such right; that's an old American idea. In Sweden and, I believe, most or all European countries it's always been automatic, and so it is in modern International law, which the US has signed on to:
"In 1989, the U.S. enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention. As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Copyright_notices_in_the_U.S.
It does not add new rights to the intellectual property that were not established. You don't need to "establish" any such right; that's an old American idea. In Sweden and, I believe, most or all European countries it's always been automatic, and so it is in modern International law, which the US has signed on to: "In 1989, the U.S. enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention. As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Copyright_notices_in_the_U.S.
Absolutely correct about not needing to assert copyright to enjoy protection, the issue is whether someone wishes to challenge an infringement of copyright.
Yes, but if Dominick continues reading the wiki article:
"However, the lack of notice of copyright using these marks may have consequences in terms of reduced damages in an infringement lawsuit — using notices of this form may reduce the likelihood of a defense of "innocent infringement" being successful.[ "
So, clearly Dominick can continue on regardless of theft, since the damages he'll have to pay won't be as much. 'Innocent until ...'
Actually I didn't know ANY of this prior to this thread.
the issue is whether someone wishes to challenge an infringement of copyright
Your mother probably won't take you to court if you steal from her. That doesn't make it less of a theft. My guess is the Vatican expects people to act morally, whether they're threatened with law suits or not.
Why would someone in Italy/the Vatican follow [obsolete] American laws? The idea that your own work isn't your own property unless you've put a 'copyright notice' on it strikes me as being as absurd as claiming that the things in your house and garden are free for anyone to take unless you've stamped them with your name, registered them with the authorities and payed the accompanying fees. Why would any normal person even suspect such an absurd idea could exist somewhere?
Besides, your quote may apply within the US, but this, extremely hypothetical, lawsuit would be an international one, meaning, presumably, that only international law would apply, not particular US interpretations of that law.
somewhat related issue that likely is patterned after the Vatican policy:
USCCB grants permission to reproduce copyrighted material for a modest fee, provided it does not constitute more than 50 percent of any of our publications.
Permission must be requested for each usage regardless of the amount of text used.
To better facilitate the review process:
Mail or fax requests to the Permissions Department: Permissions DepartmentUSCCB Publishing United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 3211 Fourth Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20017-1994 (202) 541-3098 (202) 541-3089 FAX
Please note the following:
These guidelines do not apply to the texts that the USCCB publishes on behalf of the Holy See (Catechism of the Catholic Church, General Directory for Catechesis, The Poetry of Pope John Paul II, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). Please call or write to obtain further information about the guidelines for these publications.
The USCCB is not the copyright holder for all of the works published by USCCB Publishing. In some cases, it may be necessary to refer inquirers to other sources.
As always thanks for your input
But as some of the works of the Holy See are now in Logos do you have their ‘rules’ for quoting?[Just so that they are also documented here for use when there is a forum search on copyrights]
USCCB grants permission to reproduce copyrighted material for a modest fee, provided it does not constitute more than 50 percent of any of our publications. Permission must be requested for each usage regardless of the amount of text used.
Thanks MJ. As always, you are very helpful.
Ignatius Press publishes the International Theological Commission's documents in English. Here are the links.
ITC 1969-1985
ITC 1986-2007
The copyright page looks like this:
So, rights are reserved by the ITC.
In general with Vatican magisterial (or quasi-magisterial as in the case of ITC) documents (supposing you aren't going to sell them), it's not easy to figure out what the Vatican really thinks about republishing their documents, as they may have an official policy which just follows normal international law, but they also give the impression they don't mind at all when others share magisterial documents. There are many large Catholic news organizations, for example, that send out the full text as they are published by email or republish it on their website, and many other web sites republish them on their web sites as well as they come out, and I have never heard of anyone at the Vatican complaining at all about this practice. And I know for certain that those Catholic news agencies are followed daily by many at the Vatican.
Here is an example, from just a couple of months ago. This news agency is extremely large, and is well known at the Vatican. Here they are republishing a complete ITC document: http://www.zenit.org/article-34427?l=english
Why do they allow this? Probably because they know there isn't much money to be made in these documents, and they are much more interested in people reading them, regardless of where they came from, to spread the Gospel.
Now, there are other books where this is clearly not the case, as in the Jesus of Nazareth books by Pope Benedict, for example, where they are openly trying to make money for charitable purposes. They also clearly try to protect larger magisterial documents that sell well, like the Catechism or the Compendiums, for example.
What does all that mean? Well, that's where the virtue of prudence comes in based on what you want to do....
Now, that's for (my subjective impression of) the Vatican. As far as Ignatius Press goes, I would imagine they probably are a little more interested in selling some more of those books... [:)]
Here are some additional documents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Publishing_House
[quote]The Apostolic Constitution "Pastor Bonus" of John Paul II (June 28, 1988) classified the LEV as an institution affiliated with the Holy See, in Section IX, Article 191.[2]
It has its own constitution and its own rules. The statutes of LEV 'Article 2 states: "The Libreria Editrice Vaticana has the fundamental aim of publishing the documents of the Supreme Pontiff and the Holy See."
The company owns the copyright to all the writings of the Pope, but did not start enforcing the copyright until the accession of Pope Benedict XVI.[3]
And here is an additional decree:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_decreto-lev_en.html
[quote]
DECREEOF THE SECRETARY OF STATE,CARDINAL ANGELO SODANO,ENTRUSTING THE EXERCISE AND CUSTODYOF ALL DEEDS AND DOCUMENTSOF THE SUPREME PONTIFF AND THE HOLY SEETO THE VATICAN PUBLISHING HOUSE
The Vatican Publishing House, as an Institution connected with the Holy See, has been entrusted with the exercise and custody, permanently and throughout the world, of every moral copyright and of all the exclusive financial rights - without any exception - over all the deeds and documents through which the Supreme Pontiff exercises his own Magisterium.
To discharge this office, the Vatican Publishing House, in the person of the Director and legal representative pro tempore, acts in the name and interests of the Holy See, with the authority to undertake any act for the disposition of the said rights, to initiate legal and judicial proceedings, to propose any action in order to ensure the full protection and realization of these rights and to resist any claim or request from third parties, in conformity with the norms of the international treaties and conventions to which the Holy See adheres.
From the Vatican, 31 May 2005
Cardinal ANGELO SODANOSecretary of State
If anyone wants to contact the Vatican Publishing House directly, here is the link:
http://www.libreriaeditricevaticana.com/it/contattaci/
"International copyright law" only applies to governments /jurisdictions that have signed on in agreement. Many countries have not agreed to the Berne Convention and do not honor the rights enumerated by it. (Kind of like Singapore is not obligated to honor the US Constitutional rights of a US citizen when they caned him for malicious vandalism. )
addendum: US Customs officials frequently seize bootleg recordings and unlicensed or counterfeit merchandise (NIKE, Prada) because the US has signed on to the Berne Convention.
btw: I think Fay should have received the whole sentence.
But as some of the works of the Holy See are now in Logos do you have their ‘rules’ for quoting?
This would fall under the standard fair use provisions. Stanford has well-written guidelines as to what "fair use" means.http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
Why would someone in Italy/the Vatican follow [obsolete] American laws? The idea
No foreign government is obligated. The American law is still on the books and is the standard for determining ownership. It may be archaic but it is not "obsolete." The law is based on the premise that whoever was the first to author or create a work was the true owner of that work. A copyright dates the claim of ownership. But it is not required in the USA to file for copyrights or register patents to hold ownership of a work. (For whatever reason, this seems to have been lost on internet domain registrations.) The Holiday Inn hotel chain was forced to change their name when a small independent hotel proved they had the name first. So the idea of a patent, copyright or trademark registration is just a starting point for determining ownership. Usually it depends on who has the best lawyers.[6]
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
