Real, Strange News

No one can copyright traditional religious symbols, like the cross, the crecent, the star of David, Jesus or Muhammad. Moromonism is a new religion/business though so some of their signs may not yet be in the common domain.

Why have just 1?

Apart from the lawyer's assertion, is there any evidence that the LDS Church owns registered trademarks relating to the angel Moroni? The media have failed to follow up on this point by checking with the PTO or requesting further information from the LDS Church.

The way I see it, in order to trademark the image of the angel Moroni, wouldn't the LDS hae to claim that they created it? And wouldn't that, in essence, be the same as claiming that the angel is a figment of someone's imagination? And wouldn't that, in turn, mean that the religion the church is founded on is illegitimate?

They need to be a little bit more thick-skinned. The R.C.s haven't raised a stink about these, as far as I know...

http://www.mcphee.com/items/10746.html

2 nitpicky points from a Mormon who really couldn't care about the intellectual property issues:
-Mormon, not Moroni, is our 'namesake,' although the formal - and preferred - name of the church is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
-it is not that Mormons are discouraged from consuming caffeine, but that we are explicitly directed not to drink coffee.

He is the namesake for the Book of Mormon

Religious organizations have access to the same legal rights as other organizations. So a little common sense by the marketers involved would have prevented the problem. Branding has important public recognition associated with it. This specific angel image was designed to represent specific Mormon beliefs. It is now recognized around the world as a unique symbol of the church and when seen indicates church sponsorship and identity. As such, the church has the right to protect its branded property and how it is used. To misuse it is a form of misrepresentation and could be considered fraud. Again, common sense should rule.

JT:
If by 'he' you mean Mormon, yes. Thus, "Book of Mormon." Moroni was the son of Mormon.

To rjr: You are not entirely correct. As indicated in the article, "fair use" protects our right to saterize any copywritten material for profit. The Supreme Court held this in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.

Additionally religious symbols cannot be branded property. Since they are the property of all who believe the are part of the public domain. As a result there is no "proper" usage because its very existence is based on interpretation and faith.

For example, think about the most famous religious symbol: the Cross. It is "misused" and "misrepresented" on a near daily basis, but the Catholic Church cannot sue. Nor should it be allowed to.

So rjr, all the Catholic Church would have needed to do was sue Martin Luther for trademark infringement and it would have snuffed that pesky Reformation right out?

Try and use the image of the Prophet Muhammad in a caricature. It's OK with his followers. Because, as we all know, Islam is the religion of love, peace and kindness.

What, don't believe me? Ask them and that will be the jist of their answer.

You can make satire with caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad without fear of reprisal. Just like the folks did last summer.

Oh, wait. The riots that followed the caricatures killed a lot of people. And the artist is still under a death sentence. A death sentence for making a cartoon. Nice people.

Never mind.

Besides, according to Captain Kirk - Mr Spock spent a great deal of time using too much LDS at Berkeley.

LDS as been corrupting youth for years why shouldn't it be associated with coffee?

What kind of sadistic religion doesn't let people drink coffee?!?

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I could care less about a moron who wants to sell coffee. Everytime I read an article about my faith written by press I hope that good or bad the reporter will at least get The facts strait. You didn't.

I think its great that a group of polygamist drunks can form a cult, brainwash a few people, grab some cash, garnish their disciples salaries, use some clever marketing and in less than 100 years become a respected religion. ONLY IN AMERICA! Kinda makes you wonder what David Koresh might have done if the FBI didn't rub him out.

It does seem rather barbaric to not allow your hard working church members coffee. Can mormons eat chocolate?

I'm no IP expert, but I think many may be mistaken when they claim that Moroni cannot be copyrighted. True, most religous iconography can't be protected. But Moroni, or more specifically the statuary representation of Moroni, may be different. The statue used by this coffee house was a comissioned artwork by the LDS church (done in modern times). The church has an extensive intellectual property office. If they had pursued protection for this particular representation of Moroni, they may have a case. further, if the store had rendered their own depiction of Moroni, they could probably avoid an infringement. But as they simply took the LDS commissioned depiction, they may be out of luck. Again, this all hinges on whether the LDS church pursued protection which the article failed to investigate. I am LDS and can have a slightly offended chuckle at such advertising. But on legal grounds I don't believe they can appropriate a commissioned work of art. I could be wrong. Not all art work is protected (mona lisa, eiffel tower, etc) but a recently comissioned work of art seen my a small group of faithful is hardly public domain. This one in particular is used often much like a trade mark for the church. Can one appropriate the Coca-Cola symbology or the Nike swoosh without due recourse?

Is the Angel Moroni a religious symbol or a work of art? The Church did commission the work of art.

You could argue that all art is symbolic and because Moroni is a religious figure, the statue is a religious symbol.

In response to straightouttabako, (nice name by the way) you can use trademarked symbols like the coca-cola logo or the nike swoosh provided you use them to create a different idea. For instance, a swoosh turned into a pipe for a pro-smoking tee-shirt that says "Just Smoke It" Such satire is protected under fair use and from my reading that is what the coffee shop was doing here. So even if this was a specific sculpture that sits atop a specific building it is perfectly legal to parody that likeness.

Again, I'm no IP expert but I believe courts have held that parody is protected in cases where the parody was the essential act (for example, parody in the course of political free speech). However in your examples the use of the swoosh is to sell a T-shirt or generally to profit from the efforts of others and is not the kind of protection of parody the courts have extended. And do you realy suspect that Nike would not consider that an infringement and pursue legal recourse? Furthermore, after reading another article about the story, a different reporter explained that the LDS church did indeed seek trademark protection for Moroni previously. So I would expect them to aggressively fight to protect their property much as Nike, Coca-cola, or Greenpeace might.

Mr. Emil Steiner,

Our clients are requiring you to cease & desist using all references to the term "Offbeat" until such time as you forward appropriate royalties for use of the term "Offbeat". Our claim upon this term includes the following examples of use prior to your web blog:

(1) Offbeat: A Red Hot Soundtrip is a compilation album from the Red Hot AIDS Benefit Series. It combines elements of ambient, spoken word, and trip hop to expand the ideas of artistic collage and spiritual transcendence of "the Beats". The album is an offshoot of a larger project started in the 1950's called "The Beat Experience", which explored the legacy of the Beat movement.

(2) OffBeat is a monthly music magazine in New Orleans, Louisiana first published in 1988. It mainly focuses on the music scene of New Orleans and Louisiana. It covers wide range of local music including R&B, blues, brass bands, jazz, cajun music, zydeco, to rock.

You have 72 hours to rename/remove your blog or we will file for a legal restraint.

Have a Nice Day. ;-)

If you walk around the streets of most major towns you'll see people hawking shirts that make fun of every big label from coke and Nike to Jesus and the Queen of England. Are these people getting sued? Of course not. Do cartoonists get sued when they make fun of major companies in order to turn a profit. Of course not! Does Weird Al Yankovich get sued when he sells records of parodied songs? NO WAY! As BW pointed out, The supreme court found in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, you can make a profit of parody.

A search of the US PTO's trademark database for Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (the LDS church arm that owns church trademarks) yields no instances of an image or word mark for the Angel Moroni. Either the church lawyers lied in the cease & desist letter to the coffee shop or they only have a Utah state registered trademark.

Perhaps a WaPo reporter can get to the bottom of this.

To Colgate Break: "Does Weird Al Yankovich get sued when he sells records of parodied songs? NO WAY!"

Are you kidding me! The groups you listed get sued and are sued everyday for the very type of use you are suggesting. Wierd Al would have been sued for every song he wrote but he either gets permission or pays royalties. Coolio nearly sued him until he got royalties and Eminem prevented him from using his song Lose Yourself even after Wierd Al had already recorded the parody. So your example completely validates my point.

Your example of Campbell v Acuffd is not useful as the Supreme court has found the "transformative nature" of he parody is a significant factor (among many factors) that must be considered. 2Live crew re-recorded portions of Pretty Woman. If they had used Roy Orbison's voice they would have probably lost. This coffee shop lifted without permission a copyrighted image. Use of an image as parody does not give complete license to take copyrighted material. Even if parody is the established use, several other factors need to be met for such use to be acceptable and they are not in this case. Direct sampling of copyrighted material in music has always been illegal and is often resolved in court and subsequent royalty payments. Such sampling is a more precise analogy to this case. If the coffee house had made the image of Moroni themselves they would be on solid legal ground and I'd defend their right myself.

We have a new shirt that removes Moroni but still has the hand coming out the clouds pouring coffee and has a caption that reads " The Lord giveth and A Church Taketh Away" to order one just call "Just Add Coffee" 801-969-2300