i've been noticing lots of these pins on lapels.
i could almost understand the jwdotorg pin because the new mantra is to go to the website.
but why on earth are they sporting a building?
This protection extends to any copyrightable pictorial or written expression contained in the work.
The reference you provided from copyright.gov says a copyrightable pictorial. I never said items or characters aren't copyrightable, but there has to be with some degree of it being novel or original for it to be copyrightable.
i've been noticing lots of these pins on lapels.
i could almost understand the jwdotorg pin because the new mantra is to go to the website.
but why on earth are they sporting a building?
Sparky. The reference you use actually highlights my points. The reference talks about trademark, which you have stated you are not claiming, the character has to be identifiable to the general public. The section on copyright highlights that there has to be some originality in the character. A stock character is not copyrightable, it also highlights that the character is copyrightable in the context of the work. Under your idea, man who wears a hat and a mustache is copyrightable because charlie Chaplin wore a hat and mustache in movies. But that is a stock character look, but if there was a character who wears a hat and mustache and did unique things to him, that is copyrightable.
i've been noticing lots of these pins on lapels.
i could almost understand the jwdotorg pin because the new mantra is to go to the website.
but why on earth are they sporting a building?
Sparky. Again the videos are copyrightable, not the characters themselves. And I know for sure that the branch will send out cease and desist demands for copyrightable items, including pictures. Again people on here want the law to be black and white. It is not black and white.
i've been noticing lots of these pins on lapels.
i could almost understand the jwdotorg pin because the new mantra is to go to the website.
but why on earth are they sporting a building?
Orphancrow. The creators of the taco Bell dog got the money because of a violation of state contract law not federal copyright law. Literally the only reason they got it was not the reproduction of the material but because of the addition of an element, that of the expectation of receiving payment for their product.
i've been noticing lots of these pins on lapels.
i could almost understand the jwdotorg pin because the new mantra is to go to the website.
but why on earth are they sporting a building?
The videos in which Caleb and Sofia are in, those are copyrightable, but the actual character of Caleb and Sofia are not copyrightable. To illustrate there is a circuit appeals court case of the Taco Bell Chihuahua, where both the district court and circuit court ruled, that the actual character could not be copyrighted according to 17 U.S.. 301 section 102 and 103, because the actual character is not original or novel.
a circuit overseer friend of mine serving in latin america called me today to say hi.
i asked him what's new and he dropped the news that they have received notification that the branch in mexico will be closing!!
this branch also called the central american branch (although located in mexico) oversees all of mexico's 800,000+ publishers plus all 7 countries of central america of over 100,000 publishers.
In order for this to occur they would have to change their vow of poverty and obedience. This would cause a major tax implication not for the branch or organization but for the CO. COs are member of the worldwide order of special volunteers of Jehovah's Witnesses. This would cause massive complications to payroll as well as Federal and State Income filings. Of course in other countries it may not be as complicated but the most COs and Bethelites are in the US.
i've been noticing lots of these pins on lapels.
i could almost understand the jwdotorg pin because the new mantra is to go to the website.
but why on earth are they sporting a building?
Some here have highlighted the Caleb pin on a video of one of the GB member's wife. Watchtower does not own a copyright for Caleb and Sofia, nor are they able to claim a copyright for Caleb or Sofia. In order for anyone to claim a copyright the idea must be novel and original, and Caleb and Sofia are neither novel or original. That of a young boy and a young girl who are siblings cannot be claimed to be either.
a circuit overseer friend of mine serving in latin america called me today to say hi.
i asked him what's new and he dropped the news that they have received notification that the branch in mexico will be closing!!
this branch also called the central american branch (although located in mexico) oversees all of mexico's 800,000+ publishers plus all 7 countries of central america of over 100,000 publishers.
I know that most people here are referring to US law when they speak of limiting liability and that is why Watchtower would want to do this with COs. And of course other countries have other laws and requirements and some may not even recognize as a contractor and it may not limit liability at all. But let's take the US, and again there is variety depending on states, but this would not necessarily limit liability to CCJW. And the reason I say CCJW is because that is the corporation that Elders and congregations operate under, not under WBTSPA or WBTSNY. There was a lawsuit in Missippi or Alabama where the Appeals Court ruled that the estate of a person who died at a Jehovah's Witnesses Convention could not sue WBTSPA or WBTSNY for negligence, but could only sue CCJW, if the civil action would be successful is a different matter. But let's take limiting liability for CCJW, again sometimes we tend to think that the law is very cut and dry, but it is not. There are a ton of issues that courts take into account when it comes to agents and the principal. If the Governing Body lets loose the COs they are still an agent of CCJW and the principals in cases like Moradi v Marsh Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 886,894, that gives the standards, at least in California, of when the principal is liable for the activities of the agent. So that would not necessarily limit the liability of CCJW if they don't tell COs what to do all the time.
i've seen claims over the years that wt is in the real estate, book publishing business and is a for profit enterprise at it's core.. can those of you that believe this to be the case tell me who benefits from all this wealth?.
the governing body lives in relatively humble conditions no?.
i've been curious about this for a while.
Joe134
I do know up in Patterson, each GB member does have a room up there because they have to teach classes enough so they keep some personal items up in Patterson as well. But those rooms were guests rooms when the GB member was not using them. There was an addition to the closet, that was locked off so you couldn't go through their clothes, but the furnishings and finishes were just as any other guest room.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Honestly, I really doubt that even if Watchtower come out tomorrow and apologize for this and say that they will no longer practice the 2 witness rule, inform all members of every person ever accused of sexual assault and do everything else that the people on this site want, that it would be enough for you. Let's face it, a lot of people on here wouldn't be happy unless Watchtower is ended. So you have to ask yourself are you more concerned with if Watchtower is in existence or not or the protection of children. Honestly, I think if a lot of people on here actually thought about it, it would be the former rather than the later.
