| |
You are here: Experts > Arts/Humanities > Political Science > 1st Amendment and Free Speech > Christian prophecy embedded in art protected by copyright.
Expert: Ed Buckner
Date: 11/26/2007
Subject: Christian prophecy embedded in art protected by copyright.
Question
QUESTION: Hi, in 2005 I reached a conclusion that the two witnesses that appear in the Bible in Revelation 11:3 have already come and delivered their messages of prophecy during a 1,260 day period.
The nature of the prophecies are such that I am obligated to disclose the prophecies they delivered to the general public. However, the prophecies were delivered to mankind within artistic creations that are currently under copyright protection.
The persons and companies that hold these copyrights will not give me permission to talk about their works in this light, in either a published, for profit setting or an unpublished, non-profit setting.
I feel that my right to religious expression trumps corporate interest. Am I correct? Is this a case that could generate new law. Should I just go forward with my disclosure to the public and go to court if necessary?
Any advise you could give would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Jacob
ANSWER: Mr. James,
I'm not an attorney and not really an expert on your question's subject. And besides that, I lack any belief in the supernatural, so I am, as you would no doubt expect, skeptical of your conclusion. Nevertheless, I do have an opinion, which I'll offer for what it's worth, along with advising you to consult an attorney knowledgeable in such matters before you proceed.
"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." This verse--the one you're citing--is so broad and open to so many interpretations (or, as Jefferson said of that whole book of the Bible, so incomprehensible as to be probably not worth even trying to comprehend), that it could mean anything. My best guess then, is that any court anywhere--in the US, in Australia (under down, as it's sometimes called), or elsewhere, would conclude (as I would) that corporate interest in copyrights would soundly trump your rights in this case. I'm predicting, in other words, that you'd lose decisively, with whatever consequences that might entail.
So, unless a competent attorney advises otherwise, I recommend you rethink your approach.
Of course, no *commentary* on any artwork or regarding religion by you is subject to any copyright, so if all you want to do is comment, you can probably have at it.
Unless your question is a spoof....
Regards,
Ed Buckner
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Ed,
Thanks for your response. No, my question is not a spoof. I am in the process of retaining a lawyer and I may well end up just talking about the two witnesses in a manner that you say is ok - in commentary form.
This will be alright.
I do have one additional question. One of the things that I will need to do is to show the general public that the song Penny Lane by Lennon-McCartney actually has a very different intended meaning than the one commonly accepted.
I would like to show the lyrics of the entire song and then 'comment' on the song line by line. Am I allowed to do this?
I do appreciate your taking the time to answer this question.
Sincerely,
Jacob
Answer
I honestly don't know--an attorney could probably answer the question for you. I'm 99% sure that commentary is permitted, but reprinting all the lyrics is, in my opinion, probably not. But an attorney--or possibly the ACLU?--should be able to tell you.
Good luck.
Regards,
Ed Buckner
Add to this Answer
Ask a Question
|
|
