Brazil's Catholic Church Sues Columbia Pictures For Destroying Jesus Statue In 2012… In Violation Of Its Copyright
from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept
Sometimes you come across stories that are more bizarre than you could possibly imagine. The Hollywood Reporter points us to the news that the Catholic Church of Brazil is suing Columbia Pictures, claiming copyright infringement in last year’s blockbuster 2012, because the movie depicts a famous statue of Jesus being destroyed. Brazil allows copyright on sculptures for life, plus seventy years, and the guy who made the statue (now a huge tourist attraction in Rio) died in 1961, meaning that the statue is still under copyright — and the archdiocese claims to hold the copyright. It apparently turned down Columbia Pictures request to use it in the movie 2012 because the people there didn’t like the idea of seeing the statue destroyed.
Columbia Pictures still showed the statue getting destroyed — and claims that it did get the proper permission… but from the estate of the sculptor, rather than the church. Apparently, everyone’s negotiating this out, and the Church says it wants the movie studio to admit it “meant no offense.” Of course, I’m sure the studio meant no offense, but it does make you wonder, yet again, why copyright law should prevent a statue from being shown in a movie. Not that Hollywood tends to be a big fan of fair use, but you would think that it would have a pretty strong claim to the idea that, even if the statue is covered by copyright, this particular use was not infringing.
Filed Under: 2012, brazil, catholic church, copyright, movies, statue
Companies: catholic church, columbia pictures
Comments on “Brazil's Catholic Church Sues Columbia Pictures For Destroying Jesus Statue In 2012… In Violation Of Its Copyright”
Roland Emmerich wouldn’t even have a film career if he couldn’t get away with blowing up recognizable monuments.
course, I’m sure the studio meant no offense, but it does make you wonder, yet again,…
The studio may not have meant offense, but the director, Roland Emmerich, most certainly did. He did an interview around the time of the film’s release (plus or minus a month), and went off on an anti-religion, anti-Catholic rant ( like the ones sure to appear from the extremists on this thread shortly).He’s one of these “Organized religion is evil” people( putting him sqaurely in the corner of those ignoring the countless evil acts commited by the non-religous people since time began, but hey who needs logic right?). As to the actual laws, if the law of the country says life of creator+seventy years, then the Church may have a case. You can scream creative rights all you want, maybe he shouldn’t intentionally try to attack people over their beliefs, and he won’t find himself in this position. I hope he loses, and perhaps even has to pay damages. Good.
Re: Re:
It’s entirely possible for organized religion to be evil AND non-religious people to be evil. Who needs logic? I guess not you.
Re: Re: Re:
Heh
Re: Re:
People express their own views in their art and since people have varying opinions and points of view, you probably won’t agree with all of them all the time. Maybe you would like it if you could control what these people were allowed to say. If so, there are a lot of powerful people who agree with you and they are probably thrilled with the direction copyright law is going.
Re: Re:
Actually, if Emmerich argues that, he would get off free on U.S. fair use law. It’s perfectly legit to use portions of copyrighted works in other to parody or criticize them. See Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin.
Re: Criticism
> You can scream creative rights all you want, maybe he shouldn’t
> intentionally try to attack people over their beliefs
Ironically, if Emmerich actually *did* mean to offend, he has a better case than if he didn’t. Criticism, parody and satire are well-known exceptions to copyright law. If Emmerich was using the image of the statue as a way of expressing his criticism of the Catholic religion, then no infringement occurred.
I’m sure you hate that idea but it’s true nevertheless.
Re: Re: Criticism
“Ironically, if Emmerich actually *did* mean to offend, he has a better case than if he didn’t.”
I’d be more impressed if he included, say, the Dome of the Rock in the destruction sequence. Strangely, he didn’t.
The copyright claim is still bullshit, but Emmerich has glass balls.
Re: Re:
loltards always brighten my day.
Re: Re: Re:
“Anonymous Coward” commenters can be SO pejorative when making their comments. Pejorative commenters should leave. Lol.
Re: Re:
“As to the actual laws, if the law of the country says life of creator+seventy years,”
We are dicussing copyright – right?
Was a copy made?
I dont think so.
Sue the Catholic Church
The catholic church should be sued for economical, culturally, and morally raping humanity for the last 2000 years!
Re: Sue the Catholic Church
And, for exposing minors to images of violence every Sunday.
My god, think of the children!
Re: Re: Sue the Catholic Church
That’s not all they exposed to minors!
If I were a Christian, I might ask: WWJD?
My guess: support blowing up the statue since it’s a clear case of idol-worship.
Re: Re:
“If I were a Christian, I might ask: WWJD?”
I’m confused…what does Jesus have to do with the Catholic Church?
Re: Re: Re:
so far as i can tell? more than nothing, less than should be the case.
Re: Re: Re:
After having dated several Catholic girls, I can say with some authority: not too much.
Re: Re: Re:WWJD
“I’m confused…what does Jesus have to do with the Catholic Church?”
For starters, He founded it.
Copyright - Free Speech...
This to me is a clear case of free speech, expression and so on and a total abuse of Copyright Law. Basically it boils down to, we don’t like that you blew up the statue in the movie and as such we’ll use copyright laws as our bully stick.
Freedom
Re: Copyright - Free Speech...
I don’t know anything about the legal system in Brazil. Does it guarantee free speech?
Re: Re: Copyright - Free Speech...
It wouldn’t surprise me if it guaranteed the right of the catholic church to extort money from whom ever they want…
Things you learn....
I didn’t realize that Landowski, the sculptor of Christ the Redeemer, also won an Olympic gold medal at the 1928 games….which had art competitions in them….
Off topic, I know. Just a nugget….
Copyright? This is definitely a patents problem¡
Great. Now I can take out royalties on that bridge in NYC that always gets destroyed in movies. Y’know, the one that hobo sold me when I got to America.
Isn't this the same film/film maker that didn't destroy any Muslim monuments?
I seem to recall reading something when this was being filmed about the film maker destroying any Muslim monuments.
I guess the Catholic Church won’t issue a fatwa, but they aren’t above sending in the lawyers.
Re: Isn't this the same film/film maker that didn't destroy any Muslim monuments?
I meant NOT destroying any Muslim monuments….
Re: Re: Isn't this the same film/film maker that didn't destroy any Muslim monuments?
somebody didn’t not destroy what now?
I made the comment I did specifically because I have come to expect the misinformed to make their inane comments. So let me get started on the “low hanging fruit” so to speak:
@Marcus Carab: Since it sounds like you’re not a Christian, you might actually want to inform yourself before sounding more uninformed. I don’t think anyone is worshiping the idol, it is a symbol the people have chosen to show the world that they believe in Christ. While there can be disagreement between believers (see: The protestant reformation) over the validity or use of statues, and to what extent this equates to “graven images”, YOU are not in that position.
@DH: I know enough of your opinions in regards to organized religion to not care that you made your “joke”.
Now, upon reflection while I detest Mr. Emmerich’s use of his films to bash others beliefs, this MAY be a case of fair use. That being said, that’s only if Brazil recognizes such a defense.
Re: Re:
Oh no, a statue was knocked over. Now I might cry because someone is bashing my beliefs.
Re: Re:
“you might actually want to inform yourself before sounding more uninformed”
That is some rock-solid tautological advice there, thanks.
While there can be disagreement between believers (see: The protestant reformation) over the validity or use of statues, and to what extent this equates to “graven images”, YOU are not in that position.
Perhaps I should not have called it a “clear case” of idol worship, but the fact that I am not a believer doesn’t mean I am unable to understand the nature of belief and worship, even if I have a different perspective on it. I have studied religion to some degree or another for most of my life, and I very much do understand the issue of idol worship.
In fact, one of the main barriers to my ever adopting religion when I was younger, and the reason I ultimately never did in any clearly defined sense, was the fact that it seemed ridiculous to me to constantly worship symbols and images. It was The Screwtape Letters that first got me to understand the distinction, and I’ve thought a lot about it since then. It seems to me as though every symbol of a belief creates the very real danger of shifting your worship to the symbol over the faith itself.
The role of symbols seems to be to make religion accessable – but anyone who truly pursues a religion to its fullest level of spiritual understanding must necessarily also be constantly moving away from those symbols, no? Isn’t pure worship symbol-free? Given that, I question the value of a giant statue of Jesus on top of a mountain. I see it as something that exists to attract believers but does very little to elevate their spiritual existence.
So yes, I withdraw my statement that this is a “clear case”, but I stand by my opinion on the statue and similar works of grandiose symbolism. I am skeptical of such symbolism in faith, and as such I do have my doubts about the value of organized religion in general (even if my views aren’t as clear-cut as Dark Helmet’s)
Re: Re: Re:
“I see it as something that exists to attract believers but does very little to elevate their spiritual existence.”
Hmmmm… I think that I would very much disagree. I personally find that the display of symbols helps me very much connect with my faith. At least in my case, they serve as a visual cue to remind me of the beliefs, values, and ethics that I hold as a bar for my character. To your point, perhaps somewhere down the line I may transcend the need for them, but right now I find the need to rather regularly re-examine my approach to things to ensure it is consistent with my goals.
But I grant that it is a highly nuanced view–and not everyone is self-aware enough to make the distinction.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I totally get what you mean, and that does make sense to me. But that’s because you do exactly what, in my understanding, the faithful are supposed to do: have the symbols as reminders, but be spiritually vigilant in ensuring that you don’t end up worshiping the symbols themselves. I think the danger is that not everyone is so vigilant.
In a situation like this, for example, it bothers me that the church takes offense at an assault on its symbol. I feel like the highest members of a church should be completely unmoved by the depiction of the statue crumbling – they should shrug and say something like “if you think that weakens our faith or the power of Christ in the slightest, you have gravely misunderstood God’s message”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Makes sense and well said!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I agree that the best move the Roman Catholic Church in Brazil could have made was to ignore the whole thing entirely.
As for symbolism as we have discovered humans think symbolically therefore we react to symbols more quickly and deeply than we do words. As you say, though, the trick is to embrace the symbol as just that and not to substitute it for faith.
As for the movie itself it’s complete bunk though it does give the special effects folks lots of opportunity to seem to blow up lots of stuff. Even the base premise that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 therefore the world ends has been declared bogus by Mayan elders and holy men.
Still does it do anything to my faith as a Christian that a statue appears to be blown up in a movie? Not one bit.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Agreed on all points but one: when I say “symbols”, I really do mean words too. At the end of the day, God must remain ineffable or he can hardly be called God.
Re: Re: Re:
I personally do think symbols help, kind of like a magnifying glass, concentrate your faith, so on. I also do know more people think the cross is the Christian God. So, i guess it all depends on the person. Symbols can be good to tell others where you stand, but worshiping them does get into the idol worship and so forth.
But, as a Christian myself, I do believe that the cross is used incorrectly in the modern church. We should be using as a constant reminder of what Jesus did and went through for love. Not some trinket to catch more fish.
Also, I dislike fighting over religion. It is really pointless and has caused more harm over the long run than anything shy of WW2 that I can think of. If you believe in Allah, good for you! God(Judaism)? Great! Jesus! hey, me too! Nobody/nothing? That fantastic, have a great day! (etc) see. no wars.
Re: Re:
“I don’t think anyone is worshiping the idol, it is a symbol the people have chosen to show the world that they believe in Christ.”
Okay, to be fair, I’m not as familiar with the case of Christ the Redeemer as I am other Catholic symbols and statues (I was raised Catholic), but I’m not sure that the explanation of “symbol the people have chosen” in general holds water.
The Catholic Church has long consecrated sacrments at these sites (The Redeemer among them). More importantly, the Catholic belief in the community church as an important structure itself doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Christ spoke of the importance of worshiping in groups….but the specific number he mentioned was THREE, not as an entire community. There is evidence to suggest that the Church as gone to lengths to turn the community church itself into a kind of idol worship.
And that doesn’t even take into account the Vatican’s recognition of certain “miracles” that surround statues and/or structures. One such example, link below, was the crying virgin Mary statue in Sacremento. No church official ever came out and said it wasn’t a hoax or natural phenomenon, and the priest of the church actually took samples of the secretions and sent them to the Vatican for testing. Now, I don’t know if this means that the Vatican itself worships idols, but they certainly don’t seem to do much to quell said worship amongst there flock in these instances.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/10237371/
“I know enough of your opinions in regards to organized religion to not care that you made your “joke”.”
It was a joke, yes, but one with serious undertones. I actually respect faith quite a bit (I have my own faith in God as well), but as you said, I certainly DO have some major issues with organized religion, particularly with regard to their attempts to control thought, inability to own up when they make mistakes, their intellectual dishonesty, and their blatant attempts at revisionist history. But Marcus’ point was a good one: in many ways, the Catholic Church is the antithesis of Christ’s teaching.
I don’t say this to piss off believers, but merely as another point of view. As I said, I do have profound respect for faith and those that believe. What my major issues stems from is a lack of historical and factual understanding by those that hold their faith so dear (and this is in no way directed at you, btw)….
Re: Re: Re:
There is evidence to suggest that the Church as gone to lengths to turn the community church itself into a kind of idol worship.
Interesting. I have always felt that the social structure of the Church emerges as much from natural human sociological tendencies as from the religion itself. Like when you go back and start with the biological emergence of modern humans, the formation of human society (and arguably, intelligence itself) comes from us organizing ourselves into groups for various reasons of necessity. So these groups emerged, first for the purposes of hunting and then for farming and then defense against other groups, and eventually for government and community, which is where the churches came in. It definitely seems like the role of the parish church in history has often enough been more that of administrative center and meeting place, (and, of course, power headquarters), than simply as a place of worship.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“It definitely seems like the role of the parish church in history has often enough been more that of administrative center and meeting place, (and, of course, power headquarters), than simply as a place of worship.”
That was actually far more true in history, particularly medieval history. If you visit landmark towns that have been protected by their governments in Europe, particularly Spain, France, and England, you’ll notice that the Church is always the epicenter of the town. Everything surrounds it. This wasn’t really because the people were more pious (though they certainly were more religious). Rather, it’s because back then the Church itself had a hand in parsing land and chartering new cities and castles.
So what happened is they designed the church first and then built the rest of the city and fortifications around it. This resulted in the Church being in the middle, ALWAYS surrounded by the market, with homes and fortifications on the outside. The Church took a part of the tax that the Lord of the fortifications levied on the market, and it also took gratuity involved in lobbying for further land.
But this goes back even before then. Remember the story of Christ throwing the money changers out of the temple? Church’s have ALWAYS been used as meeting places, and religion has always encouraged that, because, like governments do today, they levied charges on all of that business.
But the fact remains that Christ rarely if ever advocated for anything that represented a community church. He specifically spoke of the power of worshipping in groups, but the only number he mentioned was three. There are also verses in the Dead Sea Scrolls that speak against the need for any “houses of worship made of brick or stone”, but instead suggest that you can find reasons to worship God all around you, and you should worship him/her/it there.
I’m more intrigued by how Catholic priests can take a vow of poverty and then live the way they do. I love how the Christ in the bible comes down and destroys the religious beuracracy and monarchy of his time….only to have the Catholic Church raise up another one in his name. And, for the life of me, if the path of faith is true understanding of God and Christ, I simply cannot understand why the Church goes to such lengths to surpress and demean perfectly valid historical information concerning the Gnostics, their texts, Mary Magdalene and her probable role as Christ’s spiritual and sexual partner (one in the same in Gnostic/Egyptian religions of the time), and what happened to her and their family (there is a great deal of evidence, believe it or not, to suggest that Mary Magdalene and her children escaped to Southern France).
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Finally; a discussion I can stay out of. So I’ll post anyway. Witness the freedom to post irrelevant trash and disrupt threads!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I know very little about the Gnostic texts, but everything I’ve ever heard from them seems to shed so much more light on the Christian gospel that yes, I totally agree: the ONLY reason I can see to suppress them is that they weaken the church, not that they weaken the religion.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Wikipedia, while not complete, actually has a WONDERFUL breakdown of the gnostic texts, including source material and commentary from religios historians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_texts
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Excellent, some evening reading material.
Oh, and I’m feeling guilty about calling your views “clear cut” – that’s a bad choice of words. Let’s go with “more vociferously and jocularly expressed”
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Dark Helmet say:
1. Org. Religion always bad!
2. Chicago Deep Dish Pizza always good!
3. Priests Rich!
4. Dark Helmet MORE rich!
5. Writing good!
Just trying to be as simplistic as possible….
/sarcasm
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I think your relationship with Chicago pizza has become somewhat biblical in itself, DH. 😛
Re: Re: Re:
I’m confused about the number three? Jesus himself collected at least 12 disciples and hundreds of followers.
So why limit it to only three?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“So why limit it to only three?”
Oh, I may not have been very clear. He didn’t LIMIT it to three, but that was the only number he mentioned. He said, paraprasing, that worshiping in groups of three or more was spriritually important, but he never said anything about community congregations or anything even remotely close to them. Yet the Church has taken that statement and turned it into a validation for their beuracracy.
Sorry for the confusion…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I don’t know if you are still reading, but I did some reading on that verse.
Right before it, Jesus says:
18″I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.
19″Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2018&version=NIV
Isn’t verse 18 kind of a blank check? What you bind is bound? If 2-3 come together and agree, it will be done for you. And that Jesus is probably with them.
But that’s not what I’d use to argue for church. I’d point out the Jews always came together for corporate scripture reading and worship. The Christians did that too, often with the Jews on Saturday. Then they’d come together for Communion on Sunday. When the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70, the Christians stuck the two servcies together. Thus today Catholics celebrate the mass in two parts. I wouldn’t even use a biblical argument, just a practical one mixed with some history.
But if you were using a biblical argument, wouldn’t verse 18 be the blank check for church development? Especially for Catholics?
Anyway, I’m on topic with this site because who copyrights the freaking bible? Poor form bible translators.
Re: Re:
No one likes to see their beliefs bashed. This ironically includes people who like to bash any organized belief system.
Organized belief systems tend to have expectations relatively nailed down. This exposes them to criticism when their beliefs differ from what is popular at that time.
And that’s where your original post went wrong. You are disappointed at the director’s public views on your religion. You have similar views about his beliefs. This all ignores the actual question for this site, whether or not this should be solved in court.
I actually think that the Roman Catholic Church has added an incredible amount of moral behavior, culture, and peace to the world. Certainly, there were times and individuals who abused the power and influence of the church. Again, just like the director’s views on religion, the sins of the Catholic individual unfortunately shade people’s view of that church in its entirety.
The best thing would be for such a famous statue to be considered public domain.
I think the cardinal is making a mistake here. It will only increase feelings of animosity towards the church. It distracts from the love and good works found in the church, and helps people quickly justify their animosity towards the church.
Seeing as how we are all going to die in a couple of years, Columbia pictures needs to be be on the churches good side. They need to repent before it’s too late.
Oh, and pay up bitches!
Rediculous...
This is insane. The original was not destroyed and if comes to copyright vs free speach, I’ll take free speach any day of the week.
Lawyers that bring this kind of thing to the courts should be dis-barred.
Why don’t snakes bite lawyers? Professional courtesy…
Re: Rediculous...
I don’t think that’s the reason. I think it’s more that they can’t get the taste out of their mouths afterwards….
vive la difference
Good thing the Statue of Liberty is in public domain, or there would be some pretty worried Apes running around about now…
Make it a bit more bizarre.
Brazilian law (Lei 9610/1998) states in its chapter on limits to copyright:
Art. 48. Works permanently set on public areas may be freely reproduced on painting, drawings, photography and audiovisual techniques. (“As obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos podem ser representadas livremente, por meio de pinturas, desenhos, fotografias e procedimentos audiovisuais”)
http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL/Leis/L9610.htm (link to law text in Portuguese)
Nevertheless, the Rio de Janeiro catholich church claims ownership to any use of the statue. Back in 1989, a school of samba had a car in the carnival parade displaying the Christ as a beggar. The church managed to have a judge forbid the sculpture. In the parade, it was covered by a black cloth.
http://novo.almanaquebrasil.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ratos-e-urubus.jpg
Re: Re:
The goofy thing here is that Jesus himself would have had no problem at all being cast in the role of a beggar.
Brazil
Didnt they also freak out at the Simpsons episode set in Brazil? As I recall they attempted to make quite the hubbabaloo, which the simpsons then just had fun with. Is it possible that people in Brazil have difficulty seperating fantasy and reality?
ps this episode also had my favorite tshirt ever – homer walking on beach in thong and t-shirt that had uncle sam taking an enormous bite out of the world with the caption “America, just try an stop us!”
Re: Brazil
Cesar Maia, then mayor of Rio de Janeiro, said he would sue Fox because of that Simpsons episode. Of corse he did not. Mr. Maia is known in Brazilian politics for doing anything to attract media attention.
@Marcus and DH: I’ll leave the thread back to the copyright issues after this point, but I appreciate the respectful responses. Just some final thoughts:
@Marcus Carab: I got the tautological part of my argument right after I pushed “submit”. I also didn’t mean to imply otherwise (that non-believers can have NO understanding), but as your did admit, your use of “clear cut” definately guided my response a bit. You do perhaps have a point on the grandiose nature of the statue. All I can say in response is this: Perhaps the nature of conversions of the native peoples of Latin America in particular (say 1500-1800 A.D.) from pagan beliefs has influenced how their beliefs are expressed, in the use of statues, above and beyond other cultures. Forced on the issue, I myself have always been a bit uncomfortable with the over use of such symbolism. That doesn’t mean I disagree with any use, and this is where you and I part ways.
@DH: The only point I may be able to offer clarity on is the statue miracle thing. Actually, the Catholic Church goes to tremendous lengths to distance itself from any claimed miracles surrounding inanimate objects, religious in nature or otherwise. In fact, most of the time they put out a statement from the Vatican, or local Bishop, stating as much (sort of a “proceed at your own risk” warning). Only a very few, perhaps less than a handful of cases exist where the Vatican has said there might be something real occuring. So while a local priest may make a comment indicating his belief, the higher structure of the Church has a rigorous set of standards that need to be met to prove a “miracle”. As for Jesus’s teaching he did say “three OR MORE”. Whether the Church has taken the community aspect too far is certainly open to discussion.
OK. Enough of Bible study, back to the copyright issues…
Re: Re:
The disassociation with miracles is definitely one of the modern Church’s decisions that I respect.
Re:
by BBT
It’s entirely possible for organized religion to be evil AND non-religious people to be evil. Who needs logic? I guess not you.
@BBT: Respectfully grow a brain, and don’t put words in my mouth. I never said it wasn’t possible for both to be true.
I was stating that the implication from many opposed to organized religion, some (such as yourself) venemously opposed, is that organized religion is either the ONLY, or the MAIN source of evil actions. This is of course an absurd falsehood, when actual historical analysis is done.
I was simply discounting the false argument that organized religion is somehow unique in fostering evil actions. While we’re discussing logic however, nice straw man attack. Back to school for you old boy…yawn.
Re: Re:
“I was stating that the implication from many opposed to organized religion, some (such as yourself) venemously opposed, is that organized religion is either the ONLY, or the MAIN source of evil actions. This is of course an absurd falsehood, when actual historical analysis is done.”
The straw man would like a word with you.
Re: Re: @mobiGeek
Yes, it does. Constitution grants the right to free speech.
@mobiGeek: I am not sure about free speech but looking at the post from Marcos Faria
http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL/Leis/L9610.htm (link to law text in Portuguese) it does seem that this use could be protected (however much I dislike the context) even if no concept of “fair use” exists there. So it’s not that clear cut. Also it appears that Brazil (at least local level judges) have ignored the law in the past to suite cultural sensitivities (something not uncommon in the USA unfortunately). My first post was more of a gut level response out of dislike for Mr. Emmerich. I am for copyright reform, but to some extent the law of the land must also be respected. If there isn’t fair use there (which I thought there was not) it would put the church potentially in the technical right. Then I read about the law above, and then of course the Striessand Effect must be considered. I stand corrected.
What about...
@ Anony1. Or anyone in the mood for a good discussion. Not to troll, but you did make a post waiting for others response …
What about The history channels “Life after people” They destroyed that statue in one of their episodes… Did they get and flack about it, probably not being the fact that it probably didn’t generate as much revenue, well at least not enough to go after them and get even a fraction of a percentage of what they might get out of the blockbuster 2012…I think it’s just another way to get them selfs in the paper
@DH: Most priests live very simply, and on the grounds of the Church. I know it’s a pretty widespread belief that they all live the high life, and drive Mercedes. Simply not the case.
On your comment regarding “perfectly valid historical information concerning…” if I were you, I would take some time to examine the source evidence of these claims. There are clearly spelled out reasons WHY the Catholic Church rejected the Gnostic texts. If you believe in Gnosticism so be it, but there are specific doctrine based reasons for distancing these texts from Catholicism, and even from Christianity. The Jesus of the gnostics is not the Jesus of the Christians. As for the Mary Magdelene bloodline “stories”, I highly recommend to you researching the The Priory of Sion. The validity of the claims have been fairly thoroughly proven to be false. This is where much of the modern “Dan Brown” beliefs in Mary Magdelene come from. She was however, portrayed at times during the middle ages as a prostitute, but mainly because some patriarchal minded individuals didn’t like the idea of a woman so close to Jesus. You would be hard pressed however, to find any historical Biblical texts linking Jesus with Mary romantically. I’m inclined to believe this is because none exist. Conspiracies on such a grand scale, while possible, are messy, and leave evidence trails. None to date have been substantiated. Have a good one. =)
Re: Re:
“@DH: Most priests live very simply, and on the grounds of the Church. I know it’s a pretty widespread belief that they all live the high life, and drive Mercedes. Simply not the case.”
Okay, see here’s where you’re going to lose me, because that is demonstrably false. Even deciding NOT to take into consideration the way they hide some of their possessions by having them as “gifts” of either the Church or community (such as the cars they absolutely do drive, etc.), the average income for a member of the Catholic Clergy according to the US Census Bureau in 2008 was $45440/year. That’s around double the number for the US poverty line for single income earner…..AND THEY DON’T PAY FOR ANYTHING!!!! No room and board, no in rectory meals, no cable bills….NOTHING. Most Catholic priests even have an expense count through the church to pay for eating out or entertainment.
So come one, you were dead wrong on that one….
“I would take some time to examine the source evidence of these claims.”
I have…in a fair amount of detail. It was part of a subject of a book I recently finished writing, and I examined the arguments on both sides of the issue. The historians I’m referencing are well-respected.
“There are clearly spelled out reasons WHY the Catholic Church rejected the Gnostic texts.”
Really? I haven’t heard of any clearly spelled out reasons. I’ve heard lots of claims about validity that don’t hold much water. The Gospel of Thomas, for instance, was given no clear reason for refusal from Canon. The same is true with the Gospel of Mary, arguably focused on Mary Magdalene’s role as an apostle, although its unstated reason for exclusion is fairly clear (Peter is protrayed as a misogynist). The point is that the Council of Nicea had its motives, and it’s fairly clear that they were far from pure. That doesn’t make reading the bible wrong, but failing to understand where those books came from, and how/when they were chosen means those people don’t understand their own faith.
“As for the Mary Magdelene bloodline “stories”, I highly recommend to you researching the The Priory of Sion. The validity of the claims have been fairly thoroughly proven to be false.”
That is absolutely not true. Nothing has been thoroughly decided either way.
“You would be hard pressed however, to find any historical Biblical texts linking Jesus with Mary romantically.”
In the canonical texts that’s true, but not in the gnostic texts (and here is one of the key reasons they were dismissed). In the Gospel of Mary, for instance, Peter complains to Christ of his closeness to Mary Magdalene, particularly the act of his “kissing her on the mouth”. Now, you’re not going to get an X rated account from any religious text, but one of the neolithic religions still practiced at that time worshiped Isis and Osiris (Venus and the Sun), and one of the beliefs of the time was that the a king could only attain true power if he consecrated sexually with a woman of that belief. The timing of Christ’s venture into Roman controlled territory and the gnostic texts suggesting Christ and Mary’s relationship line up very well.
The theory is that Christ had no intention on dying for our sins, but was instead going to assume the role of King of the Jews (the people, not the religion) once he had vanquished the Romans. Messiah, after all, didn’t mean then what it does now. One of the translations is “warrior king”.
Re: Re: Re:
one quibble, the us poverty line was set in 1950. it is hardly the correct number now. I have heard that 50000$USD is the true poverty line.
and if you think catholic priests are bad, you should see charismatic heretics, errr, “preachers”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The “number” (it’s actually many numbers) is updated every year, and is nowhere near $50,000 unless you’re talking about a family of nine:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov1.html
In 2006 (the last year on that page) it was about $10,000 for one individual.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That’s what imeant. Priests are making twice or more the poverty line
Re: Re: Re:
Let’s get something straight here, shall we?
The Gnostic texts and what are being discussed here as Gnostic (not all are) were rejected at the Council of Nicea in the 300s long before the Roman Catholic Church gained or even claimed hegemony over Christianity at least in western Europe. The people we know as Orthodox were there too and had equal or more input into the Canon as the Church of Rome, as it was known then, had.
The Gnostics, contrary to what some would have us think, were by no means unified in what they believed or advocated either. There were significant differences between them and attacks on each other were contained within their writings.
The Roman canon is not the same as the Greek, Russian, Syrian, Coptic or even Ethiopian Church’s canon and it certainly not the same as the ancient tiny church in India whose adherents claim was founded by Thomas (the Doubter). Both that church and the Ethiopian church’s canons contain gospels of Thomas which aren’t the same as each other or what it cited by those leaning to the Gnostic view of things.
Conspiracy theories are all well and good though such arguments as you make are a waste of energy best spent elsewhere. The major reason Gnostic texts were left out of the canon adopted at Nicea, those that made it there after the Coptics rejected the rest. was the requirement for a seer or interpreter to teach all others including the threefold ministry Christianity had inherited from the Temple in Jerusalem along with the rejection by Gnostics that Jesus was not fully human when he walked the earth but something else.
With all respect your interpretation of the Gnostic texts or even that they all agree with what Jesus’ mission here on earth was is simplistic and wrong.
Indeed one of the many interpretations of Messiah is warrior king. But that’s only one of the various interpretations of what the Messiah would be in 1st Century Palestine.
When you come to the fact that the one settled on was a peasant rabbi from Galilee, of all places, a man who accepted women into his following as equals something scandalous in its day, a condemned and executed criminal who taught love over violence and oppression there must be something to that teaching that half the world has found compelling and true.
Not even the worst that human beings, almost all men, have done in the succeeding two millennia have done in Jesus name have diminished that message one little bit.
clearly it was…transformative
I agree with post number 40
All that Jesus had a mistress or girlfriend or was romantically involved with Mary Mag. is all a bunch of BS. He was a pure perfect man with a mission from God, why would he soil his name, do you understand how insignificant the pleasure of an earthly woman would be to him when He is in the seat that he’s in. Really??!! Just use some logic, common sense. I’m sorry, if I had to choose between being the Son of God or having sex with a earthly woman knowing the almighty himself is watching and I cannot hide anything from him… Hmmmm…That would not be a tough one…Just a thought.
Re: I agree with post number 40
I’d say it doesn’t matter one little bit.
If, as Christians believe that Jesus was fully human before the Resurrection and fully God afterwards then whether or not he was married or had children is immaterial to that belief.
In fact, Jewish practises of the time would have had Mary and Joseph marrying him off at near light speed following his acceptance into adulthood.
To assert that the Apostles were also unmarried as some Roman Catholics do is equally unlikely.
In the end it doesn’t matter one iota to what Jesus was teaching. It doesn’t change one thing. If anything being married and having children, as some claim, would make him more fully human than the unmarried virginal aesthetic some would make a case for.
As a catholic Christian (note the small c there) it wouldn’t and doesn’t change who or what Jesus was and does nothing to change the basic message of Christianity and that is that we are charged to love one another.
Nor does it make him less than the Son of God or a lesser Son of God. To say so is to ignore his message over a minor, in comparison, issue that was as meaningless then as it is now.
This is the ‘bed’ these corporations and media companies have made by going crazy on copyright laws – I hope they like laying in it.
clearly it was…transformative
LOL…because the statue was destroyed? LOL…Good one.
Anyone
Any comments on post #37 ???
did he actually do any damage to anything?
(i.e. blowing something up)
hmmmmm.. nope
so why is everyone in a tizzy?
Copyright is silly.
Rampant violence in the City of RIO and Sao Paolo, grinding poverty, aids is rife but, hey, gotta make sure the movie makers “meant no offense” when the statue was destryed in CGI. Evidently the obvious use of the statue in the context of the planet being destroyed was too vague for the backwards Brazilian Church know if the producers had done it as a slight against Catholicism…..
….and people wonder why I’m agnostic.
Re: Re:
Well, to be fair, you’re going to have a hard time coming up with many organized groups that similarly combat poverty, AIDS, and violence than the modern South American Catholic churches.
The only caveat being the traditional stance against condoms. They really need to cut it out with that stuff….
@DH: I’ll simply have to agree to disagree. All I can say is it’s complicated. Some dioceses are in more afluent areas, some in less. In areas of afluence, not only does the Church provide more to the poor (also on the books, as a complete breakdown of donations, if researched), they can also furnish more comforts. If a priest drives a car, it isn’t for weekend trips to the mountains for ski vacations, or to the beach. It’s to serve the community. It wouldn’t do well if his car was breaking down all the time. There are occasions of abuse, but on the whole, the majority of a priest’s time can be documented in helping the community. You’re right, they don’t spend anything, and I’ll have to check your reference, but that money isn’t going to hot tubs and wide screens. Oh and that “entertainment” allowance? Guess what DH? A priest I knew used it to take groups of kids (with parental permission) to the movies, because he was A GOOD GUY, and pay for all the tickets. Nothing nefarious. So I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. Sorry, again, it’s not as cut and dry as you understand it to be. As for the Gnostic texts, suffice it to say I am satisfied for the reasons for their exclusion. As I said if you take them as valid, so be it, but the Catholic Church doesn’t. My only response on your other point is, again, that I highly recommend to you researching the The Priory of Sion, and it’s origins. Yes, some of this came from Gnostic texts, but many of the modern additions are just that, modern additions. Also most of the Gnostic texts have been dated well after the Biblically accepted Gospels (some as late as the 4th century A.D.), so this does cast doubt on their eyewitness accuracy. I’d also be interested in the book you’ve written, FYI, if it’s published, so I can see your source references. Thanks for the discussion.
Copyright
This is clearly a legal “transformative” representation of the statue. The statue is transformed into rubble.(lol…sorry I had to say it…)
@DH: Any chance of getting the title of your book, or would that reveal the true DH identity, and is thus, off limits?
Curious is all..
Re: Re:
Actually I revealed my identity long ago, just click my name.
Title of the book is Echelon. I have the first few chapters on my blog…
Another ACTA leak
AND heres where your precious will migrate too
ACTA leak again
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4829/125/
and remember what jesus did at the temple with the merchants
DO YOU?
HE TOSSED THEM OUT ON THERE ASSES
and OM.GOD ITS A MOVIE
next we’ll get the USA sue the planet of the apes for destroying the pretend statue of liberty and OMG OMG i can’t hold it back no more. SEE why COPYRIGHT IS SATANIC
its EVIL
EVIL i tell you
anyone into it is EVIL
EVIL
so damn EVIL
I AM SPARTACUS
haha hehe hoho
im blowing up lil jesus dolls in back yard SUE ME PLEASE
PRIOR art and public domain 2000 years
“ya i um a think this jesus guy died a while ago and i think copyright ran out on his likeness by now your honor”
HEY wait a minute thats not jesus its homer simpson
SUE THEM FOX
In the words of a great man: I’ve seen the way’s of God, I’ll take the Devil any day; Hail Satan!
robing peter to pay paul
ya paul your idea of copyright evil is bad for all the world
and i dont need religion to tell me whats good and right and none of this is right nor good.
countersue
as no one knows what jesus looks like sue via class action on behalf of all catholics that this person has without a doubt WRONGLY portrayed jesus and that as no one knows what he truly looks like bring 50 pictures of yoru friends dressed up like him and ask the judge is this him?
MAYBE this guy…
NO?
HOW about this one. Turn to court and say are we wasting enough money on lawyers yet?
lets take a recess and subpeona all these people.
I want to know who dis jesus guy is anyhow.
( make sure you get some mexicans named Jesus as well)
There's gold in them thar hills
I’m a Christian, but I don’t find the depiction of a huge catastrophe which includes churches and statues offensive. What I find offensive is taking God’s name in vain or using Jesus’ name crassly. And yet this language is habit forming and harder to stop the more we hear it.
When I hear it, it makes me want to ask people, “Who taught you to talk like a whore? Your mother?” If that’s offensive to you, don’t you consider it offensive to speak of God in such crass terms?
Wow
This is one of the worst thread jackings I have seen in a while.
What was the topic again?
Oh yeah, copyright
Teleological vs. Deontological
In the words of the pastor at my *christian* church:
“Down with religion, up with god.”
This is bullshit. Roland Emmerich didn’t blow up anything. It’s a movie for goodness sake. The destruction that took place in the movie was done on a computer and created using CGI or Computer Generated Graphics.
I don’t see this lawsuit going anywhere because the statue of “Christ The Redeemer” is a religious icon. Religious icons cannot be copyrighted. When was the last time that someone got sued using Jesus’ image in a religious pamphlet. The statue is an image of Jesus and I don’t see how anyone can claim a copyright on Jesus.
That’s what this is going to amount to. Not only that, but you also cannot copyright a statue.
Matter of fact, there are a number of statues that use that name and I doubt that the courts will even hear a case where a church is claiming copyright on the very image of Jesus Christ.
prove to me that statue is CHRIST
as you cant he is fraudulently depicting someone and that is slander of a sort as it a direct falseness based on what his vision is.
THINK this way. YOU Live now , 2000 years form now some guy paints a portrait a you and instead a being male he doe sit female with big tatas. IF i were christs familly id be suing the catholic church for commissioning any likeness of a man they cannot know as it is then a false idiol. AND we all know what happens when you bible thumpers worship idols now don’t we
@Sheesh: “Thread Jacking” huh? Discussions of copyright involving religious institutions (especially involving the Catholic Church-included in the title) are bound to breach over in to a discussion of religion. I may have jumped the gun, but last time I checked, Techdirt didn’t try and limit it’s discussion. It’s called freedom of speech. If you don’t like it go somewhere else. “Jack”a$$.
Re: Re:
“If you don’t like it go somewhere else. “Jack”a$$.”
Anony is keepin it classy for all you fine folks out there.
@
If, as Christians believe that Jesus was fully human before the Resurrection and fully God afterwards then whether or not he was married or had children is immaterial to that belief..
That’s not what Christians believe. He was fully human, and fully devine, before, during, and after the resurrection. Yes, this would be true whether he had children or was married or not, and that is the point that undermines the conspiracy theories. There would be no material reason to suppress such evidence, yet none has surfaced. The idea that every single,solitary text could have been destroyed, is absurd. Even if such an effort could effectively be under taken, the effort itself (such as the burning of books by Hitler) would have been documented. Again history is silent. A Catholic Christian, (The LARGE C due not out of respect, but out of proper use of the ENGLISH laungauge, look up the rules there please), should know their religion. If you honestly were taught that Jesus was only fully devine after the ressurection, you have some more to learn. His divinity enabled his ressurrection in human form.
@Sheesh: I was commenting on the lack of factual criticism behind your point, and criticizing you for it. I was also using a play on words with your threadJACKing comment. Yes, I’m just a classless rube, but you of course are the hieght of civility and common sense, coming here to criticize the fact that you don’t like what other people are discussing. /SARACASM. Anony is keeping it classy…how old are you? Six, maybe seven years old? Wahhh…
i guess we can add copyright law to the list of those abused by the catholic church
Law is Law, if it can be held up in court then let the legal system decide.
greatttt
Hollywood sued by Catholic Church
IF one reads the Brazilian LAW, it is clear that the copyright laws follow the INHERITANCE of the work. In this case the Catholic Church OWNED the work wholly, it was a commissioned work.
The “family” had never any right to the work. The movie company knew this. They “attempted a circumvention” which by itself is another actionable offense under law. IT is called “conspiracy” and in most jurisdictions will triple the reward.
This means that a 20M court award will return 60M to the church.
I am not Catholic and really do not care about benefiting them at all. I will say that if the court awards 100% of all earnings to the church, or even more…then that is reasonable.
The movie company violated someone’s rights and property. They deserve the WORST that can happen to them.
Let’s examine this differently. The movie company comes into your house and takes the movie there after you have told them NO they cannot do that.
what would you do? The movie company does NOT care it only cares about PROFIT. Therefore eh only reasonable solution is to ELIMINATE their profit as an example to ALL move companies that this is not acceptable in any way.
Brasileiros
Aceitem que voc~es estão errados e que violaram os direitos da igreja católica.Voc~es não aceitam seus erros.Parem com isso,depois de matarem milhões com suas guerrinhas ainda atacam a religião de outro país.Ahh,por favor….Nós não queremos Hollywod ou sei lá o que
We live in a society which claims to strive to respect minorities – to do that you have to respect beliefs – even if you cannot support them. Clearly destroying the statue in defiance of the church, was unnecessary and an act of disrespect, and for that reason alone should not have been done. Hollywood is so bankrupt of ideas, it seems it has to destroy to get attention, like the teenagers who hang on so many street corners breaking windows and painting graffitti.
Shameful. I doubt the producer would have the guts. to create a statue of mohammed and destroy it, knowing the outrage that would happen.
I actually can understand the reaction of the church. Granted, it is just a statue, but statues and pictures of Jesus are not mere representations, they are symbols. They carry a lot of meaning for a lot of people; it’s something that I think ought to be respected.
Nice!
Jesus never tapped
A really good post man, very thankful and hopeful that you will write many more posts like this one.
https://www.rankerhub.com/neha-kakkar-height-age-wiki-bio-pictures/