Jesus Christ - copyrighted?
is really "jesus christ" a registered trademark by the roman catholic church?
sharelol, are you serious? of course Hes not.
There Ain't No Party Like A Fleetwood Mac Party
MovieChat Forums > Tortilla Heaven (2008) Discussion > Jesus Christ - copyrighted?
yeah, and the cross is also a registered trademark. how do you think the church has all that money. royalties baby!
shareand i suppose that the bible is copyrighted too?
share[deleted]
Actually it is, it's copyrighted by the different publishers (i.e. Zondervon) it depends on certain Bibles but you can only use up to 500 or in some cases 1000 verses from different books of the Bible without having to cite it. If you use over 500 or 1,000 or an entire book you have to cite which version and publisher of the Bible you used.
shareI've just copyrighted the word 'the'. You guys owe me a bunch of cash
sharethe church gets a nickle every time someone says "Jesus Christ" or "God Damn" or any variation, they got lots of money from the Da Vinci Code. That pope is smart people.
shareGrandma calls that the Swear Jar.
-----------------------------------------------------
Look behind you! A THREE-headed monkey!!!!!!
i love the church they let me smoke and drink and cry my eyes out when i am down on myself, when there is nothing left in my hope bank.
shareHow could the bible be copyrighted?
1. It's in the public domain.
2. It was written ( depending on the gospel) thousands of years ago.
3. They didnt have copyright back then. They didnt have publishing companies back then. And even if they did the copyright on the bible would have run out 900+ years ago.
I'll prove it...
Here...here's the proof...
"Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. The Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain. However, copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works."
So its the translation that could be copyrighted. But that translation would have to be current ( After about 1946, I think, when the copyright laws came into effect).
If they have copyrighted that name, then Mel Gibson owns them all the profit from the passion; what was Mel Gibson thinking, doing a movie, wich would give no profits: everything is for the vatican, that pope is the richiest guy alive.
shareUnited Christian Scientists v. Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist, 616 F. Supp. 476, 478 (D.D.C. 1985):
"The inquiry which must be made with respect to Private Law 92-60 is not simply reducible, as defendant would have it, to whether religions may ever derive benefit from private acts of Congress, or whether original works of theological import may ever be given the protection of copyright. They may, and they obviously have, n5 but the issue is considerably more complex.
...
n5 Defendant has submitted evidence of some 77 current copyrights on theological writings, including 34 separate translations or editions of the Bible. It has also cited 24 private acts of Congress since 1946 which have conferred benefits upon a multitude of religious organizations."
Although it's dictum it still goes to the point that it can be copyrighted, but it needs to be under the appropriate context - i.e. a "derivative work" translation of something in public domain.
well dude, gibson did it in a different language... he gets away with it.
share