The temple argues that the television show not only copied its conception of the deity — a muscled figure with two young children staring up at it — but also that it gives the statue and the Satanic Temple itself a bad rap. The Satanic Temple, based in Salem, Mass., defines its mission, in part, to “reject tyrannical authority” and to “encourage benevolence and empathy among all people.”...Notice the straining at a trademark claim in addition to the copyright claim which is weakened by the show's taking the trouble to make a somewhat different image:
But in “Sabrina,” the lawsuit argues, the statue is an evil symbol representing the show’s antagonists. The statue sits at the center of the academy where Sabrina is sent to learn magic, and it is considered a homage to the “Dark Lord,” whom Sabrina is fighting against.
Mr. Lederman said the concern is that the next time the temple uses its statue to send a message about the separation of church and state, people may associate it with the television show instead....
For purposes of comparison... pic.twitter.com/AZJvmq1Cks— Lucien Greaves (@LucienGreaves) October 30, 2018
ADDED: The Satanic Temple based its sculpture on this 19th century image of a goat diety (Baphomet):
I'm giving this post my "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag, because the tyrannical authority that I reject is the government lending its power to enforcing a religion's concept of blasphemy. The Satanic Temple seems to want to control what we viewers think the children are getting from their religion, and they want it to be something good, rejecting tyrannical authority (or so they say). The TV show wants us to see the children in thrall to evil. No one gets to own and control religious symbols like that. We must be able to use religious symbols to express things that the believers in the religion don't want to hear said. So there should not be a trademark claim.
As for the copyright claim, you've got to consider the common source material. The old drawing doesn't have the 2 children looking at the goat god. It would be a better sculpture without that idiotic sentimentality, but that's the part that was copied, and you can understand why the Temple included the children, as a way to say their god is worthy of adoration. Here's an example of that artistic device in a Christian context:
Not the loftiest presentation of religion. That's an 1898 painting, "Adoration of the Christ Child" by Carl von Marr.
Posts
43 comments:
I think it’s pretty good PR for the show and the church. I did enjoy the series.
We wouldn't want to give Satan a bad rap, now, would we?
"the lawsuit argues, the statue is an evil symbol representing the show’s antagonists."
Isn't it kind of ironic to worship Satan and then complain about this? Isn't "Satan" Hebrew for "Adversary"? And while we're at it, isn't copyright (viewed from a certain perspective) a kind of tyrannical authority?
Even Satan is ripped. I gotta work out more.
Apparently they're using the word "Satan" as marketing for some trinkets, and/or to get the gov't to declare them a religious org.
"64 Bridge Street in Salem, Massachusetts...TST’s headquarters maintains an art gallery and a permanent exhibit dedicated to witch-hunts, Satanism, and moral panics. The Satanic Temple of Salem often hosts and performs formal ceremonial events, lectures, screenings, and meetings. Come by during business hours to take a tour of the gallery, view the infamous Baphomet statue [$12] and pop by the gift shop. Please check our calendar of events for our latest happenings!"
It's an historical figure/statue. I even think it was featured in an old movie, silent maybe. It looks familiar. Unless The Satanic Temple can prove they designed the statue, they have no claim.
In currently Zeitgeist
They should've tweeted asking for Trump proclamation against Sabrina
"Apparently they're using the word "Satan" as marketing for some trinkets, and/or to get the gov't to declare them a religious org."
Jeez, that Wikipedia passage is badly done.
You don't qualify for funds by being recognized as a religious organization! The Bush initiative was about informing religious organizations that they could receive funds for providing the same social services that nonreligious organizations do. It's not about favoring religion but govt spending not discriminating against religion — for example, providing substance-abuse therapy. You don't get into a special privileged group (re govt spending) by being a religion. Bush was trying to dispel the impression that religious charities were excluded.
Black boy worshiping Satan: Racists!
I imagine this lawsuit is just for the publicity. They probably get new members out of it. I hear Mexicans like goats.
Imagine demonizing DEMON
Hasn't a Goat-Headed depiction of satan existed for centuries, if not Millenia? Can I get in on that sweet Crucifix copyright action?
The old drawing doesn't have the 2 children looking at the goat god.
Look what we find when we move beyond feelings.
Where did the Salem Temple get their representation of Satan? I vaguely remember seeing an image like theirs before. If they copied from a source in the public domain, is it plagiarism to copy from them?.......I would use an image of a priest patting two altar boys on the head. That would be a far more subversive and sinister image than a Billy goat. Maybe they could sculpt the image of the priest to have Donald Trump's hair and build. The children should look like Michelle and Barack. Hollywood is losing its touch.
Sabrina defence - we doctored it already.
I think the broad who plays Sabrina is a pretty devout Christian too.
I'm giving this post my "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag, because the tyrannical authority that I reject is the government lending its power to enforcing a religion's concept of blasphemy.
Isn’t blasphemy the heart of all trademark claims, that the mark represents something sacred (like Coca Cola) which is bring improperly represented or deviates from the original in objectionable ways?
Early in the Wiki article: "The group uses Satanic imagery to promote egalitarianism, social justice and the separation of church and state."
Are their donations already tax deductible? I would call that hypocritical.
Some mootsick for occasion.
Isn’t blasphemy the heart of all trademark claims, that the mark represents something sacred (like Coca Cola) which is bring improperly represented or deviates from the original in objectionable ways?
I think you will find that under the sacred scriptures of the Lanham act, the sacramental words are, "Likelihood of confusion".
I think you will find that under the sacred scriptures of the Lanham act, the sacramental words are, "Likelihood of confusion".
I understand that. I was addressing the reason Ann wanted it to fail.
Creating an exemption for blasphemy undermines the entirety of the statute. Unless you believe religious institutions deserve less protection, which undermines the Constitution.
Creating an exemption for blasphemy undermines the entirety of the statute. Unless you believe religious institutions deserve less protection, which undermines the Constitution.
I think as far as trademark rights go, not necessarily copyright, is that the protected mark is used in commerce as well. I don't know if religious use counts as commerce. It may however, I honestly have no idea.
The supernatural power business is making a big come back. Most Christians, whose ancestors once drove it out, now refuse to use theirs against it because of embarrassment that it is not scientific. But the Catholics still admit that it's a reality. The Pentecostals take it for granted and will still use it.
But for some reason many people seek to use witchcraft for fun and profit. People will pay lots of money for power, and if worshiping Satan works for them , they will buy it.
Bush was trying to dispel the impression that religious charities were excluded.
The minute you change the term “religious” to “faith based” you include the secular community and remove the ability to discriminate based on political viewpoint.
People will pay lots of money for power, and if worshiping Satan works for them , they will buy it.
This would seem to include alternate-nostril breathing.
The Satanic Temple plans to move south from Salem to Broward County after retiring early with a defined-benefit state government pension.
so.."The Devil made me do it" isnt going to work in this case?
so, let me see if i've got this right?
a bunch of anti-religion zealots make a 'fake' 'religion', which is Particularly offensive to others; in order to show that deference to ANY religion is WRONG?
THEN (now!), they find someone is 'insulting' 'their' 'religion'?
And they want the Federal Government to step in, and FORCE DEFERENCE to 'THEIR' 'religion'?
Isn't this 'actually' a conspiracy by 'MAKERS of QUOTE and Tic Marks' Incorporated to sell more tics?
oh FFS !! Political Correctness is so out of control we cant offend Satan??
Snowflakes in Hell. Damn!!
Blogger gilbar said... 'fake' 'religion'
you repeat yourself.
The Bible is fake news. God is actually evil and the Devil loves us by giving us awareness.
i whole heartedly believe you really think that Howard. Why don't you tell that to islam?
gilbar: i told it to everyone. i'm sure there are Moslims reading our dreck. Of course, I say all manner and type of islamophobic shit here, although I don't expect you to know that, but thanks for asking.
In the Twitter thread, the spokesman for TST doesn't focus on the addition of the children being relevant, just on the image of Baphomet.
In a reply to the comment saying that they based the statue on the "Devil card from the Rider Waite Tarot system", the spokesman said,"We actually modeled our Baphomet from Baphomet itself who posed for our sculptor." I hope WB calls him as a witness. (Baphomet, not the sculptor.)
Heavy handed 'MeToo' series with much contrivance. Lacks the fun and normal conflict of the original Sabrina and adds truckloads of angst and Feminism.
#NoThanks.
Howard, i'll repeat; why don't you tell that to Islam?
quit muttering here, and fly over to the Mid East; set up camp on a street corner and start Telling Them. It's one thing to be insulting and rude here; try it to their face?
I will give the Satanic Temple props for going with a boutique law firm. You get way better service at a better price, IMHO, than going Big Law that has a little bit of everything.
I do love your posts on legal issues, Althouse. On those very rare occasions where I disagree with you on a law-related topic you always elevate the discussion notwithstanding any area of disagreement.
The "Archie" comic company is doing some interesting stuff now. Of course they keep their bread and butter titles going (though updated recently), but they a horror line now where they explore the darkside of the characters without affecting the main continuity. For instance "Vampironica" with Veronica as vampire, and the even darker recent "Sabrina" series. In *that* series, Sabrina and her household would be on the side of the Church of Satan for sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_Adventures_of_Sabrina
Recommended
Hillary Clinton should also sue. Think about it.
AA: "I'm giving this post my "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag, because the tyrannical authority that I reject is the government lending its power to enforcing a religion's concept of blasphemy."
Europe is already lost and in full enforcement of Sharia against its citizenry.
The full political alignment of the western political left and radical islam continues apace.
Without plagiarism there would be no culture.
gilbar: how about I enlist in the Marine Corp with the hostages still in Iran, will that get you to shut your cocksucker? I mean, I didn't actually get any opportunity to kill any Haji's like Achilles because your hero Ronnie Raygun cut and run against the terrorists after selling them missiles.
As ridiculous as it sounds, their arguments may not be entirely without merit. You can't copyright or trademark an ancient religious symbol or ancient symbol of any kind, but you could possibly trademark a modified version of it particular to your organization. For example:
Use it as part of the logo for a school
https://www.magendavidyeshivah.org/highschool/
Or an ambulance service:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magen_David_Adom
They could argue that the addition of the children changes the symbol from an ancient symbol to one specific to their organization and that the portrayal in the TV show could cause brand confusion between their satirical worship of Satan and real, evil, satanists. I think it's a stretch and they're mainly looking for some cheap publicity, but even ridiculous and satirical images can have IP protections.
Post a Comment