Feeds

back to article Vatican awards self 'unique copyright' on Pope

The Vatican has awarded itself a "unique copyright" on the Pope's name, image, coat of arms, and any other symbol or logo related to the Holy Father. "The use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff...and/or the use of the title 'Pontifical,' must receive previous and express authorization …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge
FAIL

So what?

I'm agnostic. WTF do I need to be worrying about the "Pope" for?

That they think he needs "copyright" (haha, EPIC FAIL for not knowing the difference between copyright and a trademark) just shows how desperate the Catholic organisation has become.

4
0

Woooooo!

Don't I recall something about 'bearing false idols' or 'holding false idols'.... and how that was bad, m'kay? Isn't this that?

0
0
Black Helicopters

So which'll be the first country to recognise this?

Because you know they will. Looking forward to the court cases.

0
0
FAIL

Feel free to register...

"thepopemolested" domains...plenty free

can't wait until they launch a lawsuit claiming owner ship of

thepopemolested.me.uk

2
0
Black Helicopters

Suprise suprise

A lot of jeering comments on the ability of the Vatican to enforce the Copyright. Bet you will be suprised when the Spanish Inquistion pays a visit.

0
1
Joke

@Ahaa!!!

Of course we'll be surprised because...

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Thank you Monty Python.

1
0
Flame

bigotry....

Ironic....

Lets look.

Catholics vs Protestants

Christians vs musilims

Sunni's vs Shia's

Jews vs Muslims

Sikhs vs Muslims

Taoism vs Daoism

Athiests vs Agnostics?

So remind me again, who decides they don't like someone purely based on their religion? Yes atheists have commited mass murder aginst religous groups but you don't see atheist killing atheist because they don't like their version of atheism.

Heck, most people are so blinkered they can't even accept Mohammed and Jesus could be the same person! Huge chunks of the Bible and Qu'ran have to many similairites to be mere coincedence, maybe people should look at the similarities between the religions instead of butchering and bikering over the differences.

Me i don't give a crap, so long as you don't bug me.

0
0

Time travel?

"Heck, most people are so blinkered they can't even accept Mohammed and Jesus could be the same person"

IIRC, they are both independantly historically documented (i.e. other than their PR pieces) people separated by about 600 years, so it's not a case of being blinkered, just a case of not believing in time machines.

0
0

Atheist vs atheist...

"Yes atheists have commited mass murder aginst religous groups but you don't see atheist killing atheist because they don't like their version of atheism."

You're clearly not up on the history of the USSR then.

Soviet Communism is a secular, atheistic political philosophy. Much like the religious, theistic philosophy called Christianity, Soviet Communism underwent a significant amount of schism.

In a very real sense, they killed Trotsky because his atheism didn't match Stalin's.

0
0
Gold badge

Documented?

Independently documented? I must have missed that. The earliest surviving documents mentioning Jesus date from several decades after his death and were written by his followers. There are no historical records worthy of the name that he ever existed.

On the other hand, there are even *fewer* suggestions that he and Mohammed are the same figure. (Yes, "fewer". I take the ramblings of an evident moron to be negative evidence.)

0
0
Dead Vulture

Atheists don't kill each other?

Are you kidding? We do it all the time, just indirectly. When I say have a smaller state and let the poor rely on charity of others I am indirectly asking to allow poor people to die on the streets. If those poor are socialist and atheist then they want state help yet I have killed them for having a different branch of atheism than me.

All of which makes the atheist tag redundant, I killed them because they were socialist and I was a libertarian.

Headstone, just had to be.

0
0
Happy

@Documented?

Actually there are a few mentions of Jesus in various Roman histories.

Suetonius mentions the name 'Chrestus', which is debated whether he actually mean Christ...

Pliny the Younger doesn't mention Christ directly, but shows by his writings that Christianity was already widespread by 110 CE and the Christ was their object of worship.

Thallus attempts to explain the darkness which covered Judea at the time of the crucifixion as a natural event of a eclipse - this is significant because it shows that the details of the crucifixion were widespread enough in the 1st century so that non-Christians would contest them.

Probably the earliest pagan testimony to Jesus was a letter written by Mara bar Saraption to his son. He mentions the Jews killing their 'Wise King'.

One could suppose that he was influenced by Christians, but some of the other things he wrote (that Jesus lives on in his teachings, rather than because of resurection) show that his opinion was formed more by non-Christians.

Tacitus mentioned Christus, who was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Most philologists will admit the authenticity of this passage. Also there are obvious anti-Christian tones, and a failure to mention the ressurection, which makes it implausible to be of Christian origin. Also the importance in this passage is that it mentions that Jesus died under the authority of Pilate, as said in the gospels.

Many rabbinic sources mention Jesus in a more hostile way.

Although Josephus contains some Christian interpolation in it, it cannot be thrown away completely, because the interpolation may only have changed some details and the general tone of that passage. This can be seen because Josephus later on mentions James as Jesus' brother in a way that would assume that he had already talked about Jesus himself (the language he uses presupposes previous knowledge of Jesus.

0
0
Stop

Unlikely.

"Mohammed and Jesus could be the same person!"

Outside of the Christian scriptures, there is not much evidence of Jesus. The same is not true for Mohammed.

Also, if you've actually read large chunks of the Qu'ran, you're aware that that book itself refers to the two as separate people, with Jesus coming from a time before Mohammed.

0
0

I still have a problem with that

Crimes committed by atheists are not automatically crimes committed in the name of (or because of) atheism, any more than crimes committed by catholics can automatically be blamed on Catholicism. While some crimes certainly are committed in the name of religions (or lacks thereof) that doesn't mean all are.

Besides, soviet communism was as much of a religion as anything that called itself as such by the time Stalin got done with it.

0
0

Re: Atheist vs atheist and Stalin vs Trotsky

"In a very real sense, they killed Trotsky because his atheism didn't match Stalin's."

Yeah, Stalin considered himself to be God and Trotsky was a threat because he didn't agree.

On an almost totally unrelated note, I bet Chairman Mao's little black book would have outsold the red one.

0
0
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Flogging a dead horse and all....

Jesus & Mohammed were very different people, with very different styles. Jesus's attempts at gaining power were political (Yes, he was trying to revive the line of Jewish Kings, he was executed (preemptively) for treason against Rome, not for Heresy or because of religious persecution) Whereas Mohammed took a more direct route of conquering the places he wanted to rule.

However, I will cough to the fact that the Qu'ran and the Bible have a lot in common. But you are remiss in that you neglect to mention how much the Talmud shares with both. This is because all three are, in fact, related. They are the Abrahmic Tradition.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Next year we would have been millionaires Rodney

That's me ruined. I have a warehouse full of novelty Pope-on-a-rope soaps, novelty Pope John Thomas condoms and cassocks with easy access velcro flies.

4
0
Unhappy

There is a darker side to this news...

From a legal point of view, in some countries its still hard to censor something (free speech) but you can censor anything critical via copyright. So from that legal stunt point of view, now read their comment ...

i.e. "protect the figure and personal identity of the Pope from the unauthorized use of his name and/or the papal coat of arms for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church."

The copyright as a means to censor trick is being used a lot more these days by many groups. The concept of “Fair Use” seems to be getting suppressed (I guess partly because the music and film companies are fighting so hard to make copyright ever stronger and as a result one of the casualties is the concept of Fair Use free speech, but then free speech is also under attack, from many groups trying to censor and control people).

That means for example, any cartoon is now in violation of copyright and so can be effectively censored via a copyright claim. Also for example, if someone makes a funny cup or toy with a cartoon pope, they can also be censored via copyright. So anything that tries to be fun or critical can be censored.

Copyright is becoming a legal back door for many groups (and companies) to achieve their real goal, which is to force censorship onto people.

Legal moves like this are allowing powerful groups to force censorship onto everyone via an intentional twisting of the concept of copyright law. Copyright is being turned into a way to censor critics and critics rarely have the legal power (or money) to fight against the legal ruling, so the world is sliding towards yet another way to censor critics. Wonderful, as if we don't have enough problems already with the relentless slide towards an Orwellian world. :(

1
0
Megaphone

Ex-fecking-sucse-me?

I happen to enjoy a regular pontification, have done for years, as anyone who has read my posts before will know (ok, not many people then). Point being, I will continue to pontificate as and when I feel like it (and obviously as and when the moderatrix permits ;-P), and no-one's religious order is going to stop me from doing so. You didn't get this kind of abject silliness from the previous management, backward steps all the time, IMHO.

As for all this talk of religious intolerance, don't get me started on all of that.........

0
0
Happy

Hypothetical question

"The use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff...and/or the use of the title 'Pontifical,' must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See,"

So I couldn't say, hypothetically, that the Pope and the entire office of the Supreme Pontiff were entirely full of pontifical crap and should shove their idiotic ideas up their collective pontifical butts, without checking it with the Holy See first?

Shame.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Do as I say, not as I do

Right, so we have to obey the rules of some allegedly infallible human's sycophants but it's alright for these sycophants to disregard their own proclamations?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8425420.stm

and worse

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sexabuse.htm

There's even a support group for the victims of these hypocrites (SNAP - Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Oh heavens know, but hell yeah

If I was Pope there would be no explicit sex on TV. I would probably get a bunch of slaves to do everything, Norwegian Lesbians that feed me grapes and know how to sing.

And if they nail my pimple arse to the cross, I will just tell them I have found Jesus that will throw them off, he goes by the name of Hasus and steals hub cabs from cars. 'Cooey, Hasus can I borrow your crowbar?', to pry these God damn nails out they are beginning to hurt, crucified and I all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.

So vote for me for saviour and you will go to heaven. But, would I be a good Pope with my low self esteem, if I don't believe in myself am I looking at excommunication?

0
0
Joke

Doesn't bother me at all.

I'm an agnostic dyslexic insomniac.

I lay awake all night wondering if there really is a dog

(I'll get my coat)

0
0
FAIL

Both the person *and* office of the Supreme Pontiff ...

... suck Pontifical donkey dick.

And I will never kowtow to anyone's demand that I ask permission before saying so!

1
0
Alien

Crocodylus Pontifex...

"...The Spaaaace PooooPe!"

I wonder what he would say

0
0
Grenade

Legal Fail

(@ MinionZero as well)

The Holy See has obviously never bothered to read the Berne Convention and understand it, despite duly signing it 'some time ago' (12 September 1935, for the curious).

For shame, since it would have saved itself a bit of (further) embarassment.

Holy Hand Grenade, because there's no rolleyes icon.

0
0
PT

In the immortal words of Tom Lehrer...

"Do whatever steps you want if

You have cleared them with the Pontiff

Everybody say his own kyrie eleison

Doin' the Vatican Rag"

Just make sure and get the clearance first.

0
0
Bronze badge
Joke

Now it's stuck in my head! Damn you!

Step into the small confessional

There the man who's got religion'll

Tell you if your sin's original

If it is, try playing it safer

Drink the wine and chew the wafer

2-4-6-8

Time to transubstantiate

0
0

Prior art?

Hmm wouldn't there be a case for arguing prior art - like 1300 years prior art from the first Pope...

0
0
Silver badge

Bah!

There goes that DVD boxed set of "The Dave Allen Show" then.

On the upside, no more Tarot cards in W.H.Smith!

0
0
Pirate

Hijack the Pope

It's a shame because I really wanted to see the media quit using "tsar" to describe anyone in a position of authority. I think "Pope" would have been such a worthy replacement.

0
0

We're all sinners

"The use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff...and/or the use of the title 'Pontifical,' must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See,"

So this article and the whole thread is in breach of pontifical copyright?

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.