Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mojobadshah]

Where can I find a detailed criteria for determining whether an expression displays similar traits of an expression already in use and what would constitute as infringment?

[chugan]

Warner v. AVELA (2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13646) may be of some help.  It discusses images extracted from movie publicity photos versus the protected elements of the movie characters themselves.

Chris

nashbillies.wordpress.com

[mojobadshah]

Thanks, but I need a link.  Also I'm not sure how much that a case like that would relate to what I'm talking about.  I posted this question on another thread without a response, but I need to know for example what a detailed criteria would be for determining whether the expression "angel" in the New Testament is similar enough to the expression "Yazata" in the Zoroastrian literature, assuming it was copyrightable, to pass for infringement.  Does it really matter that they are used in different legends for example?  How similar do the legends that they're used in have to be?  What other factors would play into determining whether this is infringement or not?           

[Zonath]

Well, the issue of whether or not something is copied from another source is more or less a question of fact, and the methodology for answering that question depends a lot on what exactly the alleged infringement is, whether or not the alleged copier can be proven or inferred to have had access to the original (since there needs to be actual copying -- independent invention is just fine for copyright), and so on.

On the legal side, there's the question of whether or not the expression that's actually copied could be said to actually be copyrightable.  After all, JRR Tolkien doesn't hold the monopoly on elves and wizards, but if you're actually rewriting Lord of the Rings, you might end up getting in trouble.

In general, you should probably start by reading just a bunch of cases in which the question of copying is an issue.

[chugan]

Thanks, but I need a link.  Also I'm not sure how much that a case like that would relate to what I'm talking about.  I posted this question on another thread without a response, but I need to know for example what a detailed criteria would be for determining whether the expression "angel" in the New Testament is similar enough to the expression "Yazata" in the Zoroastrian literature, assuming it was copyrightable, to pass for infringement.  Does it really matter that they are used in different legends for example?  How similar do the legends that they're used in have to be?  What other factors would play into determining whether this is infringement or not?           

Google the cite and you'll find the case for free.  I think it will help you understand what is protected and what is not.

Chris

nashbillies.wordpress.com

[Kaitlin]

A copy of the case is at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59560810/Warner-Bros-v-AVELA-8th-Cir-Op
It's a recent (July 7, 2011) opinion out of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

@Zonath and Chris: 
FWIW, judging from his various recent posts, I believe the OP may be looking for a hook on which to hang an argument that more modern religions have violated copyright in certain concepts expressed in ancient religions, perhaps particularly those concepts which were originally expressed in stories which we would call mythology, although IMHO the seminal documents at issue, not to mention the oral traditions from which such documents derive, predate the concept of copyright.  I'm wondering if this line of inquiry stems from a misguided assumption that religious concepts and teachings can be equated to plots or characters in works of fiction and, reasoning from there, arrives at a conclusion that certain terms or concepts used by religions (such as "angel" or the idea of there being one supreme creative force) should have copyrightable status.  But such is not the case.  E.g., the fact that a creationist may not believe in the theory of "evolution" and consider the theory to be a complete fiction, does not turn the concept of "evolution" into a copyrightable "expression."* 

*There may also be some confusion for the OP relating to the use of the term "expression,"  since his questions seem to relate to whether or not various concepts constitute "expression", when the crux of initial inquiry for copyright (at least in the US) is whether or not the concept has been "fixed in a tangible medium of expression."


With respect to the OP's point that the King James Version is copyrighted, which the OP mentioned in another thread to show that ancient religious writings can be copyrighted, it should be noted that any such copyright would be in the translation, a derivative work; it would not be in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.  And, assuming the OP is correct about the KJV (and according to Wikipedia he is), the copyright in the KJV is a "Crown" copyright.  As such I would expect that, as Wikipedia states, it is only enforceable in England.  My guess is that, if this is indeed so, it has more to do with the rights of the Crown than with normal copyright law in the abstract.  (Certainly the KJV copy I have, which was printed in the US probably during the 1920's or early 30's, has absolutely no reference to copyright, or even any date mentioned in it, even though it contains a preface, a concordance, maps, and other new material.)  If the ancient religious writings at issue are not translations made under the authority of a monarchy or other government, there's little chance of any jurisdiction recognizing any copyright in them.

[mojobadshah]

A copy of the case is at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59560810/Warner-Bros-v-AVELA-8th-Cir-Op
It's a recent (July 7, 2011) opinion out of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Thanks for the link, but all I got out of that is that the modification of copyrighted material for retail purposes is considered infringement.  

@Zonath and Chris: 
FWIW, judging from his various recent posts, I believe the OP may be looking for a hook on which to hang an argument that more modern religions have violated copyright in certain concepts expressed in ancient religions, perhaps particularly those concepts which were originally expressed in stories which we would call mythology, although IMHO the seminal documents at issue, not to mention the oral traditions from which such documents derive, predate the concept of copyright.

The KJV was translated before the establishment of a copyright office too.  And moreover, ancient civilizations weren't totally foreign to the idea of copyright.  The Indo-Europeans as a whole believed that their formulas were magical and had the power to ward off "dragons." The Zoroastrians or original Aryans understood the importance of their hymns so much so that they did preserve them in the oral tradition and VERBATIM for thousands of years.  The only other group of people that I know of to have preserved their cultural intellectual heritage in such a fashion were the Indic people.      

I'm wondering if this line of inquiry stems from a misguided assumption that religious concepts and teachings can be equated to plots or characters in works of fiction and, reasoning from there, arrives at a conclusion that certain terms or concepts used by religions (such as "angel" or the idea of there being one supreme creative force) should have copyrightable status.  But such is not the case.  E.g., the fact that a creationist may not believe in the theory of "evolution" and consider the theory to be a complete fiction, does not turn the concept of "evolution" into a copyrightable "expression."*

 

What I'm saying is that the Zoroastrian concepts like:

1. "God" expressed by Ahura Mazda
2. "angels" expressed by the Yazata
3. "archangels" expressed by the Amesha Spentas
4. "The Devil" expressed by Angra Mainyu
5. "demons" expressed by the Daeva
6. "The Messiah" expressed by the Saoyashant
7. "The Incarnate Word" expressed by tanu-mathro
8. "The Soul" expressed by Urvan
9. "Kingdom of Heaven [within]" expressed by Kshatriya Vairya
10. "Heaven" expressed by Gurodemana
11. "Hell" expressed by Drugodemana
12. "The Resurrection" expressed by irista
13. "Judgment Day" expressed by Frasho-Kereti

were all products that originated with the collective psyche of the original Aryan people, were not products of external archaisms, and had no parallel during the time of their attestation, which according to the historical, linguistic, and archeological facts, was long before the post-exilic period of the Hebrew Bible after the Jews and come into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians or Aryan people, and these ideas began to appear in their literature, resembling Zoroastrian more and more until a religion known as Christianity which actually shares more in common with Zoroastrianism was established by the Jews.  Just as it is a fact that these ideas originated with the Aryans it is a fact that we did not evolve from apes.  If evolution was truly just the projection of someone's imagination, had no parallel, and was not based on external evidence then evolution should be copyrightable.[/quote]

 

*There may also be some confusion for the OP relating to the use of the term "expression,"  since his questions seem to relate to whether or not various concepts constitute "expression", when the crux of initial inquiry for copyright (at least in the US) is whether or not the concept has been "fixed in a tangible medium of expression."

No I'm pretty sure I understand what is meant now.  The word Ahura Mazda for example is the expression that conveys the concept of "a single, omnicient, and omnipotent creator of the universe and father of the human race" just like the word God in Churches expresses very similar conceptual traits.  Am I right or am I right?      

[mojobadshah]

With respect to the OP's point that the King James Version is copyrighted, which the OP mentioned in another thread to show that ancient religious writings can be copyrighted, it should be noted that any such copyright would be in the translation, a derivative work; it would not be in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.  And, assuming the OP is correct about the KJV (and according to Wikipedia he is), the copyright in the KJV is a "Crown" copyright.  As such I would expect that, as Wikipedia states, it is only enforceable in England.  My guess is that, if this is indeed so, it has more to do with the rights of the Crown than with normal copyright law in the abstract.  (Certainly the KJV copy I have, which was printed in the US probably during the 1920's or early 30's, has absolutely no reference to copyright, or even any date mentioned in it, even though it contains a preface, a concordance, maps, and other new material.)  If the ancient religious writings at issue are not translations made under the authority of a monarchy or other government, there's little chance of any jurisdiction recognizing any copyright in them.

Like I said the KJV was translated before the establishment of a copyright office in England.  I would have to say that if there is little chance of any jurisdiction recognizing the similarity of traits between expressions of the Aryan American people and the Abrahamic people it's because there a lot of religious freaks around who prefer to adhere to creationist fantasies, are delusional in the sense that they believe in phenomenon that can not be proven to exist, are in denial about historical facts, they have no respect, and for the meantime this country is doomed, but laws can change, and maybe in 100 years from now when there's more of us educated people out there championing blind faith with good faith the Aryan American people will get the recognition they deserve because right now despite the one or to aholes out there the kind of bs that's coming out in schools and in the media on the Aryan culture, or lack of exposure to the kind of things I'm talking about, in the west has not done the Aryan American people as a whole any justice whatsoever.  

In any event, I'd still like to know what is keeping the original Aryan American people from the permanent and exclusive right to use their original works in commerce.  How similar do this legends and other factors have to be in order for their be liability for infringement?           

[Zonath]

Like I said the KJV was translated before the establishment of a copyright office in England.

Largely irrelevant.  The English crown copyright over the KJV stems from the Letters Patent the Crown could issue in order to enable a publisher the right to publish a certain work.  This is largely a creature of tradition, and entirely irrelevant outside of England (or possibly the Commonwealth).

I would have to say that if there is little chance of any jurisdiction recognizing the similarity of traits between expressions of the Aryan American people and the Abrahamic people

Most, if not all religious scholars recognize the influence of Zoroastrianism in the development of various Judaic concepts.  At the same time, matters like this have no business in secular courts.

In any event, I'd still like to know what is keeping the original Aryan American people from the permanent and exclusive right to use their original works in commerce.  How similar do this legends and other factors have to be in order for their be liability for infringement?           

The law is simply not set up in this country to recognize the rights of a thousands-of-years-dead, anonymous author, or to grant such a person or their descendents any kind of copyright.  The question of liability for infringement doesn't even come up, since the texts in question have been a part of the public domain for so long that the general concepts of angels, omnipotent gods, and the like are entirely generic, just like elves, wizards, and dragons are.

[mojobadshah]

Like I said the KJV was translated before the establishment of a copyright office in England.

Largely irrelevant.  The English crown copyright over the KJV stems from the Letters Patent the Crown could issue in order to enable a publisher the right to publish a certain work.  This is largely a creature of tradition, and entirely irrelevant outside of England (or possibly the Commonwealth).

Yeah, the Crown Copyright only applies to common wealth states, but not irrelevant AT ALL  The point is that copyright law is not a universal instution.  In the UK copyright law caters to the English. Apparrently in the US it caters to religous freaks and conartists.   Religion is supposed to be separate from state yet the religous institutions are getting tax write offs.   This isn't the UK, Italy, or Afghanistan.  This is America and the law is supposed to protect all American people including the Aryan American people.  The Aryan American people are the ones who are suffering financial loss because these ideas are Aryan ideas.  The Abrahamic people on the other hand are not and would not suffer financial loss because these ideas were never theirs to begin with.  If public schools are capable of omitting these religious concepts then other sectors shouldn't have a problem doing that either.  Requiring them to compensate for the third party usage of the Aryan ideas in question wouldn't prevent their people from believing in the phenomenon that they describe.

I would have to say that if there is little chance of any jurisdiction recognizing the similarity of traits between expressions of the Aryan American people and the Abrahamic people

Most, if not all religious scholars recognize the influence of Zoroastrianism in the development of various Judaic concepts.  At the same time, matters like this have no business in secular courts.[/quote]

You don't know what you're talking about.  The scholars that do accept the facts are a very small circle compared to all the religous freaks, conartists, and ignoramouses out there.  Moreover your mistake is the belief that this is a non-secular issue.  I'm not questioning the existence of non-secular phenomenon here.  I'm talking about ideas which is as secular as anything else. 

In any event, I'd still like to know what is keeping the original Aryan American people from the permanent and exclusive right to use their original works in commerce.  How similar do this legends and other factors have to be in order for their be liability for infringement?           

The law is simply not set up in this country to recognize the rights of a thousands-of-years-dead, anonymous author, or to grant such a person or their descendents any kind of copyright.  The question of liability for infringement doesn't even come up, since the texts in question have been a part of the public domain for so long that the general concepts of angels, omnipotent gods, and the like are entirely generic, just like elves, wizards, and dragons are.
[/quote]

First off as a religion of the Aryan people Zoroastrianism is not dead, and as a cultural heritage of the Aryan people it's thriving.  The only reason nobody knows this is because it would appear that the rest of the Indo-Europeans out there like to separate themselves from the Aryans, group themselves together, and tell stories about how the Aryans were barbarians, and are terrorists, and womanizers, and pedofiles like the same kind of shite doesn't happen where their from instead of telling real history.  Their so narcissistic that they'll come out with a movie about Clash of the Titans, Troy, 300 Spartans, Alexander the Great, but when it comes to telling the other side of the story all they got is a movie based on video game Prince of Persia so that people can learn absolutely nothing about real Aryan history.  Beauty can be found in every culture and what I'm talking about is part of the beauty of the Aryan culture.  You may not respect that, but I do.

And that's unfortunate that the laws are set up that way in the US.  That they are set up that way doesn't make it right.  And so what if these ideas have been in circulation for thousands of years.  As far as the evidence can show they originated with the Aryan people.  We can clearly trace the genesis of these concepts, and moreover I didn't say elves, wizards, and dragons.  The ideas I brought up were clearly distinct from the conceptual components mentioned in rest of Indo-European and the world's corpus of mythology.  It's the difference between pantheism of the non-Aryan Indo-Europeans, the henoism of the pre-exilic Jews, and the monotheism of the Aryans.  Elves had parralels like leprechuans.  Dragons had parallels. The first reference to a wizard or magician I'm aware of was Zoroaster, but their may have been similar figures.  The "magic wand" however is purely derived from the spiritual twig of the Zoroastrian Magi or baresman.

[mojobadshah]

I hope this helps clear things up, but my question still stands. 

On another post someone stated "So even assuming Ahura Mazda could possibly be copyrighted, the protection in that copyright would not necessarily extend to all similarly-powerful beings, but would probably only extend to beings with very similar traits, legends, and so on."

What the heck does "so on" mean?  Are you guys just making this stuff as you go along or what?  Because I'll tell you this much that the way the expressions are used in Zoroastrian legends are identical to the way that they're used in Abrahamic legends.    

[Zonath]

This is my last reply to you, since you seem more interested in pushing an agenda and proselytizing than in actually learning anything.

First off, Zoroastrian holy books would, if written today, qualify for copyright protection.  But in the United States (and in most countries that follow the Berne Convention and the follow-up international agreements on copyright), the term of a copyright depends on when the work was created and/or when the author of the work died.  In either case, that term would need to be measured by the millennium in order for those works to be protected by the copyright laws of any country as they stand today, excepting certain 'special cases' which have been granted perpetual copyright in various countries (but not all, and any analog to a perpetual crown copyright would be entirely unconstitutional in the United States).

Secondly, while the concepts embraced by Zoroastrianism might be similar to those embraced by Judaism, Islam, Christianity, et. al., the mere fact of similarity does not equal infringement.  For there to be copyright infringement, there needs to be a copying of a work of expression which is protected by copyright which does not qualify as fair use or some other non-infringing use.  So even if the holy books of Zoroastrianism were themselves subject to copyright today, the question of infringement would, I believe, be decided in the negative, since 'omnipotent god' is an idea, any similarities might stem from an older work which was already in the public domain, and any alleged copying would probably qualify as fair use.  You may think these things are all identical, but it takes copying of a protectable expression for there to be infringement, and I believe that what you identify as such more or less all falls under the category of 'idea'.

Finally, copyright is not a regime that is set up to protect cultural heritage.  It is not a regime that is set up to make the Jews pay the Aryans royalties because they lifted some ideas from the Aryans a few thousand years ago, or to make the Aryans pay the Jews royalties because they now follow a religion that is a clear derivative of Judaism.  As far as copyright is concerned, all of those ideas are squarely in the public domain, and have never been subject to copyright.  This is not a case of selective religious bias, since copyright law is not set up to protect religious expression and cultural traditions that are older than any of the countries that grant copyrights.  You can do whatever you like to works in the public domain.  You can paint a mustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa, and slap it on a coffee mug that you sell on Amazon.com, and nobody will be able to sue you for copyright infringement.  You can write zombies into a public domain translation of the New Testament and publish and distribute a million copies, and there will never be any kind of copyright infringement whatsoever.

All the rest of your diatribe is utterly irrelevant, and not within the scope of copyright law at all.

[mojobadshah]

This is my last reply to you, since you seem more interested in pushing an agenda and proselytizing than in actually learning anything.

Holy Cow...  Don't get all pent up about it.  If people seek out Zoroastrianism as an alternative to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam because of its genuinimity then all the more power to them.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not concerned with religious concepts and expressions.  I'm concerned with expressions and concepts of cultural heritage which has a lot to do with cultural identity.  

First off, Zoroastrian holy books would, if written today, qualify for copyright protection.  But in the United States (and in most countries that follow the Berne Convention and the follow-up international agreements on copyright), the term of a copyright depends on when the work was created and/or when the author of the work died.  In either case, that term would need to be measured by the millennium in order for those works to be protected by the copyright laws of any country as they stand today, excepting certain 'special cases' which have been granted perpetual copyright in various countries (but not all, and any analog to a perpetual crown copyright would be entirely unconstitutional in the United States).

Yes, and most of those countries including the U.S. are the ones who are responsible for the what I consider to be a blatant infringement upon the cultural heritage of the Aryan people.  Might is not right.  If it was then what is to stop us from redistributing the wealth of the upper class evenly across the board, for example?  What I'm talking about is the wealth of the Aryan people, not the Jews, not the Christians, and not the Muslims.  If what I'm talking about is unconstitutional then the constitution needs to be amended.  It wouldn't be the first time.      

Secondly, while the concepts embraced by Zoroastrianism might be similar to those embraced by Judaism, Islam, Christianity, et. al., the mere fact of similarity does not equal infringement.  For there to be copyright infringement, there needs to be a copying of a work of expression which is protected by copyright which does not qualify as fair use or some other non-infringing use.  So even if the holy books of Zoroastrianism were themselves subject to copyright today, the question of infringement would, I believe, be decided in the negative, since 'omnipotent god' is an idea, any similarities might stem from an older work which was already in the public domain, and any alleged copying would probably qualify as fair use.  You may think these things are all identical, but it takes copying of a protectable expression for there to be infringement, and I believe that what you identify as such more or less all falls under the category of 'idea'.

Ok maybe "omnipotent god" is an idea, but I did mention its expression Ahura Mazda, so what would an opposing party have to say in their defense now, and there is absolutely no proof that this idea stemmed from an older idea, and quite frankly, although I respect you helping me out here, it bothers me that you would bring that up.  The Jews were henotheists, the Aryans were monotheists, but when the Jews came into contact with the Aryans they converted to monotheism.  Nevertheless I don't see any reason why an idea that is an original creation of a group or society shouldn't be copyrighted.  Yes, if they were truly generic then, no, but they are not.      

[mojobadshah]

Finally, copyright is not a regime that is set up to protect cultural heritage.  It is not a regime that is set up to make the Jews pay the Aryans royalties because they lifted some ideas from the Aryans a few thousand years ago, or to make the Aryans pay the Jews royalties because they now follow a religion that is a clear derivative of Judaism.  As far as copyright is concerned, all of those ideas are squarely in the public domain, and have never been subject to copyright.  This is not a case of selective religious bias, since copyright law is not set up to protect religious expression and cultural traditions that are older than any of the countries that grant copyrights.  You can do whatever you like to works in the public domain.  You can paint a mustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa, and slap it on a coffee mug that you sell on Amazon.com, and nobody will be able to sue you for copyright infringement.  You can write zombies into a public domain translation of the New Testament and publish and distribute a million copies, and there will never be any kind of copyright infringement whatsoever.

Copyright Law may not be set up that way, nor is Cultural Heritage Law, from what I understand, though it should be.  Islam, Christianity, and Post-Exilic Judaism are actually clearer derivatives of Zoroastrianism than they are of Pre-Exilic Judaism by the way, and that you tried to assert that Islam was a derivative of Judaism shows me that there is a problem here.  That copyright was set up the way it was may not have been a selective religious bias, but to deny the Aryan American people the right to compensation for the third party use of their non-generic proliferations would be a case of selective cultural bias.  It would not bother me at all if the Mona Lisa was copyrighted by the individual heir or society to that particular piece of heritage belongs.  Why should it bother you or anyone else?  

All the rest of your diatribe is utterly irrelevant, and not within the scope of copyright law at all.

I don't know what you're referring to when you say diatribe.  You're just pissed off.  Copyright regimes set a precedent and are highly relevant to cultural property law.  Why don't you do something useful like get all the money back to the people that those bankers stole from them?

[mojobadshah]

Just to make myself even clearer.  There was a segment on the news yesterday about the 400 year or so anniversary of the KJV.  The KJV is supposed to be almost shakespearian in style, but it's a terrible translation like other bibles.  What I mean by that is that the translators translated it so that the Old Testament would conform to the New Testament.  For example the Hebrew authors of the Old Testament did not believe in the existence of hell.  They believed in Sheol which translates the "grave."  Even today, from what I understand, most devout Jews do not believe in an afterlife.  The Christians however replaced Shoel with Hell to bs people into thinking that the OT belief system was consistent with the NT.  The concept of hell actually derives from drugodemana "the house of the liers" in Zoroastrianism.   If you read Acts 2 1-11 you will see that there were Parthians and Medes or Aryans in Jerusalem when the NT was being written.  Though this does go to show the deceptive nature religion plays in our lives what I really wanted to bring up was this: the woman who spoke on the KJV brought up the fact that several well known expressions of today originated in the KJV like "the apple of my eye."  Although the expression may be original the concept that it conveys "someone, cherished above others" is not.  Most people who hear the expression God on the other hand associate the expression with "a single omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe that fathered the human race" comparable to what people think when they hear the expressions Ahura Mazda, Yahweh (although Yahweh in the pre-exilic sense was just one god of choice among other gods), or Allah.  They don't think of for example Zeus.