Pope passes special Vatican copyright giving him exclusive right to use his name, title, image

The Pope has created a special (and weirdly incoherent) copyright in his name, image and symbols. This "copyright" appears to prohibit using these words and symbols to denote goods or services ("Pope Secondary School," "Pope Soap," "Pope Burgers"), all of which are covered already under trademark and fraud laws, and need no copyright to protect them.

The statement cited a "great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father" in recent years as contributing to a desire to use the Pontiff's name for all manner of educational and cultural institutions, civic groups and foundations.

Due to this demand, the Vatican has felt it necessary to declare that "it alone has the right to ensure the respect due to the Successors of Peter, and therefore, to 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..."

"Consequently, 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," concluded the message released to the press.

Holy See declares unique copyright on Papal figure (Thanks, Huw)

• [Anonymous]

  Would be interested in the original source material on this. The vatican is anything but naive in matters of law. They have an army of lawyers in their ranks, and I find it hard to believe would issue instructions to the world in general about how to use the word pope. What this sounds like is an internal memo to diocese and parishes warning them not to use the papel imprimature without permission. I don’t see a link to the original document or statement.

• [Anonymous]

  In an ironic twist, the copyright has already expired. Despite the RIAA, MPAA, Disney, etc., no nation (except maybe the Vatican) recognizes copyright lasting 1700+ years.

• [Nores]

  Well, it worked for Ted Alvin Klaudt. I don’t see why more powerful and organized pedophiles wouldn’t want to get in on the action.

• [Snig]

  Every time I see a picture of him, I feel like he’s the one violating a copyrighted image from Star Wars.

• [cortana]

  What are all those Buca di Beppo restaurants going to do now… Will they have to change the Pope Room?

  (for those who haven’t been to one, most/all Buca di Beppo restaurants have a big dining room for a large group, with a life-size head of Pope John Paul II in a plexiglass box atop the table. ergo, the Pope Room.)

  • [Antinous / Moderator]

    You forgot to mention that the pope’s head is on a lazy susan so that you can spin it while dining.

    • [Anonymous]

      hilarious

  • [Anonymous]

    Thank you for this information cortana.

    I shall hie me to Buca di Beppo, and insist that they “BRING ME THE HEAD OF JOHN PAUL II!”.

    It’ll be fun until they throw me out. Then it’ll be hilarious!

• [Hools Verne]

  They’ll take my issues of Super Pope from my cold dead hands dammit.

• [aelfscine]

  Good to see the Catholic church is taking another stand for irrelevancy.

• [Rob]

  Here is some ASCII art I’ve done to show my respect for the pope. I hope BoingBoing doesn’t throw the formatting off at all. I spent a lot of time working on this art, the time spent is indicative of the depth of my esteem.

  –!-

• [sum.zero]

  the pope is an ass.

  • [Sarah Neptune]

    …which is where he “passed” this “special Vatican copyright” from

• [hep cat]

  But Pope has always been synonymous with the finest Italian foods!
  http://www.popefoods.com/

  I’m pretty sure the pope trademark is pretty well established for tomatoes and breadcrumbs.

• [jetfx]

  With this stricter control over the use of ‘Pope’, the Church may finally get around to ridding us of this plague of anti-popes we’ve been having ever since they went slack about it during the Reformation.

• [dhalgren]

  I wonder what the Black Pope, Anton Lavey, would have to say about this. Oh dear, d-d-d-d-dear dear. Well I’m gonna eat my breakfast of Poped Eggs and bacon. Seriously though it’s the Pope, who cares. Just some guy in a hat made for rabbits and a silly robe and with a collection of cool incense burners.

• [Jonathan Badger]

  But “Pope” can refer to considerably more important people than the elderly defender of traditional values who likes to dress up in frilly clothing.For example, the English poet Alexander Pope or the US Civil War General John Pope. How can anyone prove that I’m not naming my product after *them*?

• [Fudo Myoo]

  so, no more Pope on a Rope?

• [‘berto]

  “…exclusive right to use his name”

  No worries from me… I’ve been calling him “Joey the Rat” for years now…

• [Anonymous]

  This copyright or trademark issue is really not intended to prevent Pope costumes or Benedict Burgers. It’s to prevent things like “Pope Benedict XVI University” or “Vatican Health Care” or “Pontifical HIV Research Unit” or “Papal Printing Press” being used inappropriately, not only by non-Catholics, but by Catholics too. If American Jesuits want to name their university after him, then they must ask permission. If a Catholic Hospital wanted a Pope John Paul Abortion Centre, they must ask permission. Such institutions could imply that their mission is supported by him personally. Similarly with use of his coat of arms.

  If his picture is used on a website, or made out of bacon and green peppers on a Pope Pizza, ends up getting complaints under this copyright/trademark/whatever it should be, then that is just silly. Similarly with pope outfits, MacPope Fish on Friday burgers, or Papa Ben Beer. None of these misrepresent their agenda as being Catholic or Papal in nature. Perhaps they could be challenged, but to do so would be pointless and an embarrassment.

• [John Mark Ockerbloom]

  Has anyone seen the actual statement? I can’t find anywhere else other than the linked article that quotes from it, and there’s nothing in the quotations mentioning a copyright. The *news article* uses that term, but they seem a bit confused on the concept.

  What it sounds like, from the bits quoted in the statement, and other things said in the article is that the Vatican is essentially claiming trademark rights and rights of publicity, not copyright. These are fairly well established rights in various legal regimes, for guarding against improper commercial use. They’re what legally prevent folks from selling BoingBoing brand taser guns, or putting Cory Doctorow’s likeness on a poster advertising some company’s latest DRM scheme, unless the principals agree to it.

  To exercise some of these rights, you may need to explicitly assert them in some way. For instance, explicitly asserting a trademark seems to be recommended
  to get full trademark protection. And use of the Seal of the United States is also restricted by a specific statute, again to prevent people from using it to imply their particular promotional scheme is endorsed by the US government.

  If this is what the Vatican is doing here– trying to prevent improper commercial use or misleading implications of papal endorsement– it seems to me that they *should* make a public statement about the specific items that they’re claiming protection on, so that they can establish that protection both in the Vatican City-State and in other countries that have reciprocal agreements on things like trademark protection. And they seem to have limited the scope of items reasonably; it looks like they’re only claiming rights on things related to the Pope, and not to more general religious symbols or names.

  I haven’t seen the statement on the Vatican’s web site at present, but if someone has seen the full statement, I’d love to see a link.

• [CANTFIGHTTHEDITE]

  They should have consulted with the Giant Spider first.

• [Anonymous]

  http://mcsweeneys.net/2005/11/29snappy.html

• [Cory Doctorow]

  @33 “explicitly asserting a trademark seems to be recommended
  to get full trademark protection.”

  It’s more like registering your TM entitles you to some statutory damages (which means it’s easier to fight claims, since you can find contingency counsel who know there’s a big statutory payoff if they win), and it makes establishing priority simpler and less expensive.

  But I agree, it really seems to me like everything the Pope is asking for he already gets under rights that are neighboring rights to copyright, like trademark, and that this is a weird, folk-copyright idea like that expressed by @TEKNA2007.

• [Daemon]

  So, basicly the Pope is pontificating?

• [Tomas]

  A quick Google search will turn up many schools with “Pope” in the name, like Nathanial Pope Elementary, Milton Pope School, Antoinette Pope School, Clement Pope School, or the large number of Catholic secondary schools named after Catholic Popes.

  What the pope is trying to do is ridiculous.

• [John Mark Ockerbloom]

  “everything the Pope is asking for he already gets under rights that are neighboring rights to copyright, like trademark…”

  The “already gets” is not a given. Trademark, unlike copyright, is a “use it or lose it” right in most jurisdictions. If you don’t register it, use it in commerce yourself, or otherwise claim it, then often someone else can use it. (The Berkman Center’s overview of trademark law, for instance, mentions how the rights to “Brooklyn Dodgers” went into the public domain after the LA Dodgers stopped asserting rights over it for a while.)

  So it seems to me reasonable to me that if the Vatican wants to be secure in having trademark and related rights to the pope and related symbols, without itself getting into the pope-on-a-rope business, it should occasionally make an explicit statement of those rights. That’s what happens for many other trademarks.

  I agree that the idea of a *copyright* or quasi-copyright to the pope’s name doesn’t make much sense. But I didn’t see a copyright claim in the quotations from the Vatican included in the news article. The term is only mentioned in one place in the article, with quotes around the word and only that word. While this could be a 1-word quote, it could also be the article writer’s own terminology, with the quotations used to denote an approximate explanation rather than an attributed claim. (Or, in other words, “copyright” would be the writer’s idea, not the Vatican’s, in this case.)

  If we could see a full copy of the original Vatican statement, though, this matter could be cleared up.

  • [Cory Doctorow]

    I think it’s pretty clear that the Pope actively uses his name, the symbols of his office, and his titles, and there’s no danger that a court would find that they had been abandoned by the Church.

• [Anonymous]

  “The Pope” ? The Vatican ? Which one?
  The one in exile: Pope Michael I, or the one in Rome?
  http://popemichael.homestead.com/

• [johnofjack]

  Somebody better tell Robert Kirkman it’s time to let Battle Pope go out of print.

• [Anonymous]

  I think this has a lot more to do with institutions calling themself “Pontifical University” or “Pontifical Academy” than copyrighting the word “pontifical.” In the Catholic Church and their canon law, certain positions (seminary professors, some church professors) are mandated to receive degrees from accredited schools, which are indicated by the use of the word “pontifical”. Probably they want to prevent certain institutions from passing off as Church-approved.

• [JoshuaZ]

  I imagine a conversation went something like this in the Vatican:

  Bennedict:”hmm, maybe the Church hasn’t done enough to alienate young people. What else can we do?”

  Cardinal Bertone: “Well, your Holiness, a lot of them care about copyright reform and really don’t like the overly broad use of copyright and trademark rules by large institutions. We could copyright your title…”

  I suspect that the next step is the copyrighting of “ex cathedra” and “sede vacante” and other cool sounding Latin phrases. Pretty soon no one will be able to talk about the Church without paying it money.

  • [Avram / Moderator]

    The Pope owning the rights to the phrase sede vacante would be particularly hilarious.

• [mermaid]

  Is anyone else so sick of xtianity that they can’t even stomach reading criticism of it?

• [Anonymous]

  Why do I suddenly feel compelled to market a new line of Holy See Binoculars?

  What stupidity. Rather than use their vast resources to round up the pedophiles in their midst, they do this. Nice.

• [Anonymous]

  Wouldn’t that be a trademark?

• [Anonymous]

  http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/catholic-church

• [Zhiva]

  Wait, did they just banned Alexander Pope’s poems?

• [Anonymous]

  Hmmm,…..where have I heard something like this before?

  Oh! That’s right….Scientology!!

  Now that is what I’d want *my* Pontifex Maximus associated with, if’n I was a Catholic. Which I ain’t.

• [ZDepthCharge]

  I don’t see anything wrong with this. No, wait. I mean I don’t see anything in the Vatican’s action that is out of character. Hasn’t the Church always been about control? How sad for them that they cannot “copyright” (is that what they just did?) or trademark God. That’s “God” with a capital “G”.
  Actually I think they would copyright or trademark or patent God, but I suspect they fear the Jews would hit them with Prior art.

  • [Ed Frome]

    ZDepthCharge: “I suspect they fear the Jews would hit them with Prior art.”

    I see what you did there. A twofer =o)

• [Anonymous]

  Original press release:
  http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24857.php?index=24857&po_date=19.12.2009&lang=it#TESTO%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE

• [TEKNA2007]

  This is from The Onion, right? A good laugh for holiday cheer? I wish.

  It’s like the way teens and twenty-somethings are invoking the copyright concept. I keep seeing it used to mean “control of an idea and all possible uses of it”, rather than as a specific and limited right granted by statute. It’s like they think copyright is a magic spell you can throw that gives an impregnable shield that paralyzes everyone who approaches it. And now the Pope is doing it to.

  • [misterfricative]

    It wouldn’t really surprise me if the Pope (TM) thought of copyright as a magic spell. After all, magic is pretty much his stock in trade.

    I’d also be interested to know what the Discordians have to say about all this.

• [schmutze]

  So… no more Sexy Pope costumes next Halloween then?

• [Anonymous]

  ArchieMcPhee would be screwed!!!

• [IamInnocent]

  …exclusive right to use his name, title, image.

  But we can still abuse it right?

• [Marcel]

  Waitaminit…..in my native language, which is dutch, the word ‘pontificaal’, which is the same as the english ‘pontifical’, is a normal word regularly used to signify an rather brash obstructive positioning.
  To claim that this word may only be used when sanctioned by the Vatican, would mean that the Christian Church would claim ownership over my cultural heritage and subsequently restrict its expression.

  So…nothing new there.

• [Anonymous]

  What about Alexander
  Pope, the dead type poet? Just wondering.and what about any of his descendents??? and just what about if your surname over which you had no control was POPE???

• [Anonymous]

  C’mon – just look at that piece of plastic tat celebrating JPII being stuck in Cocytus (I assume that’s the relevance of the snow globe anyway) and say that the Vatican doesn’t have the right to try and wrest some control over fair use.

• [Anonymous]

  Hey, my “Pope Shoes” are a tribute to Gregory VII, and I’m pretty sure he’d be in the public domain right now either way.

  But I do look forward to someday having a religious schism where the true church is settled by courts, and the antipope is taken down for copyright violation.

• [Anonymous]

  Sooo, if a journalist writes something about the Pope and the Vatican doesn’t like it, the newspaper now can be sued for copyright infringement?

  Did the Vatican hire their lawyers from Scientology?

• [thequickbrownfox]

  Consult the Book of Pettyfoggery

  “And lo, didst the Lord smite heavily upon those who bogart our Holy nomenclature,

  Yea, verily unto the full extent of our completely Non-Nazi lawyers.”

• [Anonymous]

  does this mean i can’t sell my Pope on a Rope Soap on etsy?

• [Anonymous]

  This is all fine and dandy within his little 110 acres, but what about the rest of the world? I can’t see how his word has any effect on you know, anything or anywhere that matters.

• [Anonymous]

  All of your comments are interesting, but I would like to hear what comic book artist Paul Pope thinks about all of this.

• [Anonymous]

  But of course since no provision for this sort of thing exists in THE REST of the world, under the principal of “National Treatment,” this exclusive right only exists in the territory of Vatican City.

• [Anders Andersson]

  This makes me wonder: How long before we have a Pope Streisand effect?

• [Jradi]

  Obviously they don’t have any intellectual propery attorneys on staff. Copyright and patent laws only extend to the borders of your own country. And for the pope, that’s a pretty small border. You can say, do, print anything you like right across the street from the Vatican. Shoot, you can even buy your pope-t-shirt across the street and wear it into the Vatican. You just can sell stuff with his name within the Vatican. It’s no biggie, really. As for all the countries besides Italy, it has even less (no) impact.

  • [phisrow]

    At least according to wikipedia, the Vatican is a signatory to both the Berne Convention and the UCC.

    Your theory that their “copyrights” only extend to within spitting distance of the Pope’s gold-plated clubhouse is, unfortunately, wishful thinking.

    • [arkizzle / Moderator]

      Nope, their arbitrary and not-covered-by-Berne copyright laws only extend to their border.

      Berne signatories don’t get to make up laws that the other members then have to follow.

• [Anonymous]

  In related news, the famous bear who poops in the woods has also copyrighted his name, so that you can no longer ask “Is the pope catholic? Does a bear poop in the woods?” without getting special permission.

• [His Wholiness the Rev.DrJon BMM, NaRD]

  …HAIL ERIS!

  Incidentally, everyone reading this is now a Pope. That’s what we Discordians think of it.

• [Anonymous]

  Isn’t trademark more powerful than copyright here? After all, copyright theoretically expires.

• [Anonymous]

  I’m going to pontificate frequently, and I’m not paying the old fraud a penny. Seriously – trying to copyright words in common usage….there is no low to which the pope and the vatican will not stoop. There – I think I just committed at least one copyright violation.

• [Allegra]

  What would Jesus copyright? And what would his parents think?

• [Multifarious]

  @marcel: yeah, that got me thinking too (ook hollander). And then it got me thinking about the etymology of the word we used (pontifical). I’m thinking it might well be exactly this behavior from the papal throne that made us use the word the way we do, like you said, a brash obstructive position (stopping the flow of normal discourse).
  Seems like our forefathers have been grappling with this lot before ;)

  (oh, and this DOES mean we’re blatantly infringing on their copyrights, and have done so for centuries, yay for us)

• [Kibble]

  For God so loved the world that he sent a battery of lawyers to sue the ass off of anybody who tried to make a nickel off of his racket.

  Somebody should copyright the phrase “militant atheist” so that the Catholic Church no longer has a way to describe the rest of the human population.

• [Anonymous]

  Ok, I shall never utter his name again.