Image talk:Jesus cult logo.JPG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an unauthorised derogatory derivation of copyright material. John Campbell 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

1986 Logo parodying the Jesus People logo which was then current. The Jesus Cult logo headed a pamphlet published to draw attention to concerns about the activities of the controversial Jesus Fellowship Church, later known more generally as the Jesus Army. Legal advice was sought in 1985, prior to publication, when the solicitor's advice given was that the graphic consitituted a clear parody and was therefore not an infringement of copyright. The advice was that because it was a clear parody, rather than a "passing-off", it constituted an "original work". Upon publication no legal challenge was made about copyright by the Jesus Fellowship Church and the parody has been in the public domain for 22 years without challenge.

[edit] Response

The advice I have received is that:

(a) There is no general principle that a parody can never be an infringement of the material from which it was derived

(b) The only question is whether sufficient fresh mental labour has been expended in generating the parody for it to have become a new original work in its own right

(c) The mere substitution of the word "Cult" for the word "People" is probably insufficient for a new original work to have arisen

(d) The purpose for which the paraody was created -- namely to disparage and indeed defame the Jesus Fellowship Church -- militates against it being protected: it cannot be appropriately described as fair and honest dealing with the original logo

Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the appearance in a self-published pamphlet of limited circulation is very different from that which obtains today. In addition there is no indication that it was viewed as being placed in the public domain 22 years ago. John Campbell 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(I have moved the discussion to talk, rather than keeping it on the image page)

I do not see a copyright violation here. There is no possibility of confusing the two marks, and the intent to parody is very, very clear. I've removed the copyright notice as part of admin review of the copyvio list. --Alvestrand 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)