Who is real Owner of WT publications intellectual content and all published words?

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

this mentioned history is interesting. Inspiration of artist who making pictures have several sources, i guess. :))

You'd be surprised -- maybe not. New and old religious books and booklets and calendars from Christendom especially were common sources from which to "draw" inspiration. But for typography and graphical layout ideas, current magazine advertising was a common source. I know of a couple of blatant plagiarisms that the Watchtower never got in trouble for. Armageddon was going to wipe out a multitude of such sins before anyone could catch on. There is a good chance they will show up over time, however, as more printed material makes it to the Internet for comparison.

There was nothing wrong, however, with the 1968 Awake! cover.

[DespicableME]

LOL!!! I have a question. What is infringement, and what is fair use? Public domain material isn’t included.

In my opinion, this outlook would be demonstrative with this factoid. The use of Watchtower Literature without the expressed consent of the Watchtower. WouldnÂ’t that be a blatant disregard of copyright law?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

42 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You'd be surprised -- maybe not.

[Noble Berean]

7 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That is actually hilarious

[Srecko Sostar]

9 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

That is actually hilarious

I do not know when Art Department started to making photos (and after videos) with JW members as actors of JW and non-JW for purpose of illustration in publications and after for real photographs of real people :)))) even in artificial, fictive, SF situations.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I do not know when Art Department started to making photos (and after videos) with JW members as actors of JW and non-JW for purpose of illustration in publications and after for real photographs of real people :)))) even in artificial, fictive, SF situations.

It started officially when "offset" printing in color was being tried in 1978. (My Book of Bible Stories) But the Photoplate Dept with E.Robinson, B.Gehring, (and Randy and Maureen mentioned earlier) was already able to do this, with a very large expensive camera, bought in 1975, where half of the camera was in a darkroom. It didn't take the pictures of people, and was rarely used for still objects, but it could take an existing photo or piece of art, and add the screen filters so that the final negative or positive could be used to create a metal plate from which to produce photos on paper. This practice has been used for over 100 years, especially in newspapers. But both special effects and simple versions of artwork based on a photo could now be used, especially since 1975 with the new camera, stat cameras, and darkroom procedures that all of the artists were able to take advantage of. (Most didn't take advantage and just sent their line drawings in two or three colors to Photoplate, and then Ed and Randy would use a color filter to produce a black plate and a color plate.) Except for the Bible Stories book, all magazines and books up until then still used only two ink colors plus black on each magazine, and any one picture was always in just black and one of the two ink colors. That changed in the 80's but not overnight. Models had been used by the artists for their work since the 1960's. But different artists preferred different methods, often just copying from photographs and magazines.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, DespicableME said:

LOL!!! I have a question. What is infringement, and what is fair use? Public domain material isn’t included. . . .

The use of Watchtower Literature without the expressed consent of the Watchtower. Wouldn’t that be a blatant disregard of copyright law?

Much of what the Watch Tower Society has produced since 1879 is in the pubic domain. MOST of what is not already in the public domain has been offered to the public, and if a price was put on it, this was said to only "cover the cost of printing."  Then the outcome of some lawsuits (e.g., Jimmy Swaggart) convinced the WTS to stop requesting a specific price for the items if they wanted to keep their tax-free status in the United States. At this point it was declared that the literature offered to the public was to be distributed free of charge, and within a few years this policy was also applied to the rest of the world. Also, all Jehovah's Witnesses have been commended in the same publications of the WTS for their free and wide distribution of literature (Bibles, books, tracts, booklets, magazines, videos) in the Yearbooks, pointing out that even an Internet distribution can be counted as one of those placements. 

You may also look up the term "Bible-based literature" and "Bible-based publications" on the Watchtower Library CD and notice the number of times that such literature is not only indicated as free, but "life-saving," "life-improving," "important" and again, individuals are praised for considering it and reading it even when they were not the intended audience. The costs of transporting it to remote regions is noted. The fact that there are volunteers of all ages who are involved in all aspects of publication and delivery is also important.

So the copyright issue of "fair use" on a forum where much of the content of those publications is discussed for learning and critiquing is a fair point, and I think that hundreds of Witnesses and non-Witnesses have sites that break the "fair use" rule. But it's also quite possible that the WTS finds itself between a rock and hard place, or like Moses, "between the Pharaoh and the deep Red Sea." Because the WTS has already praised volunteers who distribute and promote this free, life-saving literature, they would look hypocritical if they began picking on sites that provide extensive access and quotes to such literature, along with discussion of the same. Legally, they could go after all sites except their own, but this would also give out the impression that they are afraid of critique in the way Scientologists are, for example.

[Srecko Sostar]

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

such literature is not only indicated as free, but "life-saving," "life-improving,"

-fair use rule as far is "fair" for those to whom critics is addressed. WTBTS is proud when can address "argumentative, Bible based" critics, judgement, revealing of hypocrisy in other parts of human society (religious,as first choice and then other, politics and trade systems).

But when observers, critics, ex members or even JW members questioning, reveals inside spiritual and hierarchical structure of doctrines, rules, instructions and corporational moves in aspects of money and such part of life inside WT, then WT consider such behavior as "not fair use", even against law of "publishing rights" or "intellectual property" and against WT freedom of speech, freedom of religion.   

Double standard? or theocratic warfare methods?

[JW Insider]

On 12/5/2017 at 2:39 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

-fair use rule as far is "fair" for those to whom critics is addressed. WTBTS is proud when can address "argumentative, Bible based" critics, judgement, revealing of hypocrisy in other parts of human society (religious,as first choice and then other, politics and trade systems).

I don't think we can criticize the WTS itself for revealing hypocrisy, and in this way being critical and judgmental about religion and other parts of society. It is part of our belief system that wheat would grow alongside hypocritically similar-looking weeds for example. The WTS has not been guilty of going beyond fair use in the content of most of their work. There have only been minor exceptions that I know of. It's also possible they did not get the rights to Seola, but I'm not sure. When they wanted the rights to the Diaglott, they bought them. They licensed the rights to print the American Standard and Byington.

I know that when someone found a story told from the perspective of an unborn child in a Reader's Digest, for example, an Awake! article was produced over the exact same idea and a lot of phrases remained intact. But a lot of work was put into making it different, so I don't think it was plagiarized on purpose. Similar complaints about Awake! articles have less basis. Sometimes an author writes a non-fiction book on a particular subject and another author says he or she can do a much better job, and comes out with a book with nearly the same title. I have done work for commercial publishing houses, and I know that when a specific genre of writing makes a publishing house some money, another publishing house often puts out a call for anyone who has worked on a similar book.

On 12/5/2017 at 2:39 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

But when observers, critics, ex members or even JW members questioning, reveals inside spiritual and hierarchical structure of doctrines, rules, instructions and corporational moves in aspects of money and such part of life inside WT, then WT consider such behavior as "not fair use", even against law of "publishing rights" or "intellectual property" and against WT freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

More often than not, the WTS is right in claiming its rights to such material. There have been cases when internal material, never intended for public publication has been "leaked." Leaked material can seem damning, but unless everything is leaked it will always tell a partial picture. And the leaker is often interested in making it seem as if the partial picture is the while picture.

However, if material that was already intended for the public, or put out on a public website (jw.org) is leaked, this is where the WTS might find a PR problem trying to suppress it. But even here, they would have no legal problem trying to suppress it if they wanted on many sites that are primarily known for quoting large chunks of material or giving out access to publications on their own non-JW sites.

[DespicableME]

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I do not know when Art Department started to making photos (and after videos) with JW members as actors of JW and non-JW for purpose of illustration in publications and after for real photographs of real people :)))) even in artificial, fictive, SF situations.

LOL!!!!!!

She Wasn't a Witness when she became a porn star!!!

I just turned 18 when I got married. I had this really weird image of it in my head: a white dress, cooking and sewing for my family, that kind of thing. We did have sex, but that was because it was part of being married. Then one day my father died and then the whole religion became useless to me. I had outgrown it and I realised how screwed up it all was. I wanted out and eventually I got out. It was difficult though because you can't get divorced unless one of you commits adultery. You can live separately, but you are still tied to one another. I packed my things and soon after that I met Ruud, my current husband. Then the marriage was over. That was 14 years ago.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/mv9dja/holland-jehovah-porn

12 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

That is actually hilarious

 

[Srecko Sostar]

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the WTS is right in claiming its rights to such material

How would you looked, JWI, on secular WT rights in "publishing and multiplication" of, as claim is coming from WT, so called spiritual food, which/that is in fact obligation from FDS in regard to Masters command (to share), and Masters claim that His food is free for everyone, in connection to Bible "principle" - "Freely you have received; freely give." 

How is possible, then/after that in mind, to looking for material benefit, compensation or something else that is possible to get according to mercantile rules and laws.

Who is real Owner of WT publications intellectual content and all published words? If FDS was not been appointed "over ALL BELONGINGS" in 1919 then they HAVE NOT any of Masters belongings in their hand at all. Does FDS possess, own "words"? Are they Owner of words aka spiritual food? If all teachings are/came from Master then FDS  have no justification in claiming any intellectual or printing rights for such material.

But if it is opposite, if source, producer and owner of all content in WT publication is in human, then they have rights to put their hands on that and ask for protecting own possession, because it came from them not from God. :))

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

How would you looked, JWI, on secular WT rights in "publishing and multiplication" of, as claim is coming from WT, so called spiritual food, which/that is in fact obligation from FDS in regard to Masters command (to share), and Masters claim that His food is free for everyone, in connection to Bible "principle" - "Freely you have received; freely give." 

How is possible, then/after that in mind, to looking for material benefit, compensation or something else that is possible to get according to mercantile rules and laws.

The legal rights to one's own published material include the right to say HOW it is distributed. This means that even if what they published is free, they have a right to the context in which it is distributed. They can keep someone else from slapping on a different cover to each book and magazine to claim that the material came from someone other than the WTS. They can keep someone from copying their material and then claiming that the copiers had it first and the WTS copied from them. They can keep someone from distributing it from a website where each item is presented as if from some devil-worshipping cult, to try to cast the WTS in a bad light. They can keep someone from slicing and dicing their material to make it look like it says something it doesn't.

And of course there are hundreds of other situations and rights that a publisher gets in order to protect their own work and protect the context of distribution.

Some real-world examples have happened that match many of the cases I listed. For example, a spin-off "Watchtower Society of ????" somewhere in Africa or a one-time Soviet nation might decide that they agree with 50% of the material that comes from the WTS of PA or NY. So they discard or edit half of the material and distribute the "good stuff" under their own spin-off. This could cause confusion for the average reader in those areas when some of the same material is distributed by bona fide JWs with original WTS publications.

To tie this loosely to the discussion, you might have noticed that it was not until the 1970's that the WTS went after a few organizations of this type, and had to change the name from "Jehovah's witnesses" to "Jehovah's Witnesses" (with a capital "W"). The intentionally "generic" look of the name made it easy for another group to steal. Something similar had happened with "Bible students" and "Bible Students" many years earlier. There was even talk at the time of changing the name alternatively to "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses." Don't know if all other countries practiced this so carefully, but it remained the practice in the USA that the word was never capitalized except in titles, of course -- sometimes not even in titles. Even the Supreme Court learned to not capitalize the "w" in titles of cases. Here are two examples from 1976, just before and just after the change.

*** w76 3/15 p. 169 A Happy Family Life—How We Achieved It ***

• After living in Vancouver for three years, and after our fourth son was born, one of Jehovah’s witnesses called at our door. It was the first time that this occurred in our lives. This eventually led my wife and me to become Jehovah’s witnesses. Let me tell you how this came about.

*** w76 4/1 p. 204 Let Everyone Take Life’s Water Free ***

• He observed the honesty and steadfastness of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the civil war, at which time many of them were hated and mistreated. The first week after the war he began attending their Bible-study meetings, and he is now a baptized member of the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Aba.

*** g76 3/8 p. 22 A Conspiracy Thwarted in “the Land Down Under” ***

• In his reply, the archbishop tried to circumvent the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion by claiming that Jehovah’s witnesses were not spreading Christian teachings. Neither he nor his Protestant colleagues, however, were able to produce positive proof of seditious behavior by Jehovah’s witnesses.

*** g76 3/22 p. 7 When Will These Cruelties Stop? ***

• Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi are not some unusual “splinter group” with a separate set of standards or views, different from those held by Jehovah’s Christian witnesses world wide. Like Jehovah’s Witnesses everywhere they seek to be exemplary in payment of taxes and obedience to laws.

So the change happened between 3/15/76 and 3/22/76. The March 1976 Kingdom Ministry used the name "Jehovah's witnesses" and the April 1976 Kingdom Ministry used  "Jehovah's Witnesses." No public explanation was given.