Orthodoxy and Copyright

[cothrige]

...
I weighed the factors, I talked with them to see if I could read that they were telling the truth and in the end (NOT feeling good about it) I broke the film cartridge and exposed the film.    

I can see how, in a particular closed and controlled setting this is very fair and only to be expected.  But, I do continue to wonder about how others see situations less controlled.  As I have wondered above, what about an achitect?  If a person builds a house in public view can they claim control of all images of that house, as the artists could in your example?  If you paint something and keep the painting yourself, and show it in controlled settings, then I respect the rights of the owner and creator to retain continuous and full control.  However, what about Wylan or others who choose to put their work in full public view?  Are we really to believe that the public space and view of the public space is now owned by Wylan by his choice to display his work in such a public manner?  If a person takes a picture of his family after having dinner and they happen to be standing near a Wylan mural, can Wylan then walk up and legally take the camera and expose their film?

I have also wondered about VCRs, which are certainly copying, and I have not seen it addressed yet.  Yet, it is very relevant to a full understanding of why and when filesharing would be wrong, and when it may be acceptable.  If an artist broadcasts over free and public airwaves a work, be it a film or interview or performance, how can they then claim to still have such full control as they would otherwise have retained?  Have they not voluntarily given up some control in their choice to transmit over public and free airwaves?  They could have privately screened it, and charged for entrance and not allowed any copying, and so I am forced to think that they made a decision for their best interest to trade their total control for greater exposure and possibly money.  If I record that signal in my VCR, how can I have "stolen" something when the airwaves do not belong to the creator of that work, but to the people to which I am party?  Would the Orthodox Church suggest that people recording such shows with their VCRs are committing a sin?

Patrick

[Keble]

The issue of images of a building's exterior is, I think, a red herring. Architecture remains a field in which more or less expenseless copying remains impossible; to copy a building, you have to build a building. (Copying of plans remains covered by conventional copyright; building innovations, by patent, perhaps.)

[cothrige]

The issue of images of a building's exterior is, I think, a red herring. Architecture remains a field in which more or less expenseless copying remains impossible; to copy a building, you have to build a building. (Copying of plans remains covered by conventional copyright; building innovations, by patent, perhaps.)

I would disagree and say that a photo of a building is a copy of that building in the same sense that a photo of a piece of art is a copy of that.  In a sense to copy a painting one could say that you have to paint a painting, and yet that is not entirely true in the meaning we are using "copy" here.  Art shows can certainly have sculptures and deny the right to people to photograph those as well, and yet a sculpture cannot be copied by a camera anymore than can a building.  So we could speak of public sculptures, such as is in front of many buildings, just as easily as the buildings themselves.

So, ignoring the buildings for the purposes of clarity, what of these other works of art, such as Wylan's murals?  Does he retain the rights to that work, even though he places them in full view of the public and in public spaces?  And if he does, then does he control the very space they are contained in by being able to stop people from taking pictures in which the art appears?  In other words, would it be legal and acceptable for Wylan to expose the film of people who take a picture of his work?

My position is that an artist does own his work until he sells or gives it away.  I would think that it is like other fields, and I have control until I intentionally relinquish it, for whatever reason.  Wylan, by painting on the sides of buildings, gains a wider audience and his reputation increases, as does his marketability.  But, the cost of this method is he loses certain rights and claims to control.  The space he places his work in is public, meaning it belongs to the people, and by choosing this location he cannot make what is public, i.e. the space itself, private.  I also think this is analogous to the public airwaves used by radio and TV broadcasting and so the same argument would apply there.  Therefore, anything audible or visible to people in non-private spaces is itself public, limited obviously to only that part which is publically audible or visible.

I am very curious about what the Orthodox here, especially those who do feel that downloading mp3s is a sin, think of this?  I am not trying to be contentious, and am also not saying that mp3s are not a sin to download, though I do have several problems with the laws as they are now applied in the US.  Rather, having read such sweeping statements about copying and such, I really would like to know how far this would be taken?  Are we to insist that the same legal constraints apply to these public displays in public space as do to mp3s of recorded materials such as music?

Patrick

[Panagiotis]

My argument is that you have no argument. You have yet to demonstrate, on a patristic basis, that filesharing is thievery.

You are making me look like a Protestant quoting Sacred Scripture, Mateo-
How about Sacred Scripture, whom the Fathers of the Church had common sense that thievery is a sin and never really had to write on it because common sense dictated that property is property and stealing is stealing. Is this satisfactory?

Exodus 20:15 “You shall not steal"
Deuteronomy 5:19 "You shall not steal"
Jeremiah 23:30 "30 “Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” says the LORD, “who steal My words every one from his neighbor"
Matthew 19:17-19 "So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Romans 2:21 "You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?"
Ephesians 4:28 "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need."

Where was this concept of "intellectual property" for most of the Christian era?

Non-existent, but at least most contributed to the dead guy they wrote about when they copied each other. So in a sense, they at least gave credit.

What about those of us who live in countries where such a law is technically on the books, but the government either looks the other way or openly aids copying?

If you want to approach the throne and say, "well, everyone did it and the law really did not prosecute, so..." then go right ahead. Semantics.

Panagiotis

[GiC]

In other words, stealing's okay if you're robbing a rich person.

Sure, why not...did I mention that I had a relative who rode with Jessie and Frank James?...amongst the greatest of American heroes they were.

[Matthew777]

You are making me look like a Protestant quoting Sacred Scripture, Mateo-

In Orthodoxy, there is no theology without patristics. That filesharing is stealing, as far as I've been shown, is still an open question.

[Veniamin]

Sure, why not...did I mention that I had a relative who rode with Jessie and Frank James?...amongst the greatest of American heroes they were.

No, this guy is a great American hero.

[Panagiotis]

In Orthodoxy, there is no theology without patristics. That filesharing is stealing, as far as I've been shown, is still an open question.

Then ask a monk who knows what filesharing is.
See if he thinks that taking intellectual property is not sinful, or better yet lets ask some of the Fathers here think its a sin.

Panagiotis

[CRCulver]

Then ask a monk who knows what filesharing is.
See if he thinks that taking intellectual property is not sinful, or better yet lets ask some of the Fathers here think its a sin.

For what it's worth, the Orthodox Church in Romania openly reuses copyrighted materials. The locals simply think it absurd for someone to claim that he "owns" books, music, or art. And the last monastery I visited had a large collection of CD-Rs of Christian music copied from CDs visitors had with them.

[GiC]

No, this guy is a great American hero.

That damned yankee was the epitome of what was wrong with the country. A power hungry despot who worked as a pawn of the banks of railroads. You'll forgive me if I stick with the James brothers...may their American frontier spirit never die.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: Orthodoxy and Copyright