Forum Moderators: not2easy
"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," reads a statement released by the Vatican on Saturday morning
Story on elreg here [theregister.co.uk]
[timesonline.co.uk...]
it reads ever so slightly differently in french and italian ( my italian isn't 100% ) ..but they are claiming defacto copyright on anything related to the present pope ..and also to the past ones ..and also to images , photos etc and even his pre pope name and any and all info about him ( the current one ) ..ie presumably ..we approve in writing about what you write say or publish ..or presumably ..we send in the lawyers ..or the spanish inquisition ..:)
hopefully reporting this on WebmasterWorld is OK ( with them ) under fair use ..:)
Interesting how the ommision of a few words in a quote can change the whole meaning. The original quote is:
Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff (his name, his picture or his coat of arms), and/or the use of the title "Pontifical", must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See.
I wonder why the author of the article ommited the words "his name, his picture or his coat of arms". Of course it could simply be to save money: disk space and bandwidth are expensive. Or it could be, because he would not have had a story then.
Because if you look at the full quote I can't see that they claim much that is not within their right.
They claim the right of the use of the picture and the name of the pope: They have the right to do this. You can't just take a photo of the pope and put it on a product and sell it like you can't take a picture of Angelina Jolie and sell a product with her picture on it. Or advertise a product with a name of a celebrity.
This is called the "right of publicity" and is the right of every individual to control any commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or some other identifying aspect of identity.
Also in many countries the use of coat of arms is regulated under special laws and it is illegal to use trademarks or brands that, without permission, incorporate a state or international designation or a municipal coat of arms. For example it is also illegal to use the "Great Seal of the United States" for commercial purposes. And even where this is not the case it is not necessary to register it as a trademark for itself because it most probably has the status of a trademark already. It is not necessary to register a trademark to get legal protection for it. And since the Vatican coat of arms has been in use by the catholic church for centuries in most territories of the world it should qualify for protection as a trademark easily under most trademark laws.
The only claims I have my doubts is the use of the title "pontificial" or the term "pope".
So for most parts all I can see in this statement is a warning that in the future they will begin to enforce those rights they already have anyway.
