Dear Mr Nichols,
I am a member of the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Monroe, Michigan. I today I discovered that you are using the icon of “St. Teresa of Jesus” (Avila) on your Caelum web posting with no credits displayed and no permission from us, the SSIHM. I am the artist and have been given the responsibility of managing the copyrights for all of my icons (www.saintjosephstudio.com). I am working closely with our intellectual copyright lawyer and must ask you to send me a donation of $300 for illicit use. You must also remove it from your site. I will allow two weeks for this to occur, or you will hear from our lawyer.
Thank you kindly,
Sr. Nancy Lee Smith, IHM
Dear Sister,
I don’t remember using any of your icons; if I did it was unintentional. I try to credit the artist when that is known. I probably, if I used it, found it somewhere uncredited. My apologies.
As an iconographer myself (www.eighthdayicons.com) I am appalled by your attitude. I don’t know how much you have studied iconography, but in the tradition the iconographer is not an “artist”, not obsessed with his or her individual creativity, but is a vessel of God. He or she would no more think of copyrighting whatever image came through them than they would think of suing someone who used it. I surely hope that you never try and sue an Orthodox blogger who used one of your images, as this would add to the scandal that Roman Catholic “iconographers” have already stirred by their use of noncanonical models and general ignorance of the tradition.
peace
Daniel Nichols
ps: Getting sued by a nun, vowed to poverty; that is rich. I may have to blog about it.
pps: Found your icon, from two years ago; contrary to what you claim, I in fact gave you credit, but have gladly deleted it.
Icon of St Teresa of Avila NOT by Sr Nancy, but by Lynne Taggart. I was, by the way taught by IHM sisters in late elementary and junior high. I wonder if “Sr Nancy” was one of the two or three mean nuns that I had…
If I didn’t know better, I wouldn’t believe it. Perfect response.
To be charitable, I have seen other ecclesiastal authorities unduly worried about copyright as of late. Sr Nancy may find herself stuck between a rock and a mother superior who does not understand the Internet or the severe lack of generosity that this is.
The USCCB and the Vatican Printing Office are two of the worst offenders on this issue- Internet evangelists can’t even quote the Catechism.
Pirate Catholicism, anyone?
I’m sorry; when I see iconographers do this shit it drives me crazy. That, and encrypting one’s icons with a logo or something so no one can use them (I have even seen Orthodox iconographers, who ought to know better do this). Yeah, it’s nice if someone asks before using my icons, but I wouldn’t dream of suing! Sheesh. I did do a google search and learned that Sister Nancy was once Sister Philippine, and sang “They Call the Wind Maria.” She was not in Fenton Michigan and so was not one the ones who taught me, but seems like she was cut from the same cloth.
Or at least cut from the same haircut. What is it with nuns abandoning the habit and bad haircuts?
Ted, that was my very first impression on looking at her site! If someone is going for narcissistic careerism, they should at least try to do it competently.
Why is there a picture of her there? It’s about the art not the personality, isn’t it, especially in the case of icons?
Let’s not be snarky. Leave her hair out of it, and for what it is worth I have (old) photos of myself and my kids on my site.
Apologies: I should have thought more carefully about that. Indignation is a dangerous thing, especially the righteous kind! I might have been projecting a judgment and assumed intentions onto her photos.
Wow, just wow. I am unfortunately familiar with an Orthodox iconographers who has some similar leanings, though I don’t know that he would go so far as to sue someone.(frankly, his work is not likely to be displayed in too many places) The idea that an icon writer has some sort of intellectual property rights is patently absurd. Icons are the”property” of no one other than The Church, which, the last time I checked is all of us. Nice reply by the way Daniel, I’d expect nothing less from you! 😄
If it is the guy I am thinking of it always amazed me that anyone would pay the price he asks …
Ha, ha, ha, ha!
Rare that someone gives so blatant a reason NOT to buy their product. Thanks Sr. Nancy Lee Smith!
I wonder if I can copyright the cross. I doubt anyone else has, and I bet I could make a bundle on it. Maybe if I just put a few wiggles on it, and copyright one version a day for several years. I mean, I don’t have to take anyone to court and win; just threaten, and see what shakes loose. That would be cool! (Until it got hot.) Does Sister Sue know that she is asking for all your disposable income in 2013? Does she know how many mouths you feed? Is her bonnet too big to know she has bees in it?
Dang, John, maybe I can copyright “God”; sue everybody, even the atheists when they say they don’t believe in Him. I could get filthy stinking rich!
Very sad! Dan you are absolutely right on about icons being written not painted and so very different from paintings. Of course people can ask for donations but Sister seems not to understand the spirituality or reason for icon writing. Your observation about her vow of poverty is also on target. How sad. I certainly will pray for her
I didn’t say they weren’t painted; of course they are painted. They are “written” in the sense that they are words of God in paint.
Just to play sister’s advocate, if she doesn’t defend her copyright from unauthorized reproduction, what’s to stop some business from using it in advertising for immoral products, or one from making and selling reproductions? Or should that use go unchecked? Because the way copyright law is you can’t be selective. If you can be shown to have let your work be reproduced without authorization, your copyright can be nullified. Do you think the tradition of the artist not claiming credit made more sense in a world without the possibility of mass reproduction, without free speech, without the internet, and with wealthy patrons, poor supplicants, and many young novices (and even serfs) supporting the artists financially?
Trademarks can be nullified if unenforced. Copyright cannot.
Using an icon in advertising for immoral products? Sounds like a great way to kill your own business.
Just stopping by because — with respect — several commenters here have misunderstand copyright a bit.
-Copyright attaches automatically to something upon its creation; the sister didn’t actively do anything to obtain it
-“he way copyright law is you can’t be selective. If you can be shown to have let your work be reproduced without authorization, your copyright can be nullified.”? (Zeb) I believe you’re thinking of trademarks. Sr. Nancy can choose to ignore bloggers’ use of her work; this only prevents her from later going after *those* same bloggers, not after other parties. (SCOTUS is actually hearing a case about statute/limitations & estoppel on this; google “pamela petrella raging bull”)
-Yes, crosses are often copyrighted (automatically). For example most of these images are copyrighted:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cross+designs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=sVFVUprYIYTW2gWPrIDgCw&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1250&bih=563&dpr=1.5
-“God” is not a substantial enough work to be copyrighted, but works as short as a haiku (and possibly shorter) can be.
And the most important thing:
-Almost every time you think/say “Copyright probably _________ , because that’s just common sense” you’re wrong
Thanks for the correction.
I think you are off the mark with your letter back. Artist is a legal definition that gives someone legal rights. It is not uncommon for religious orders to produce things of value in order to help support themselves and support their works. See the Chimay Beer produced by the Trappist Order. While you may be right that you would hope the sisters be more charitable with their limited property, that doesn’t excuse the full admonishment of their position. The Sister probably took your use to be typical for profit use of their iconography. A loving heart would not have looked upon the situation with immediate ire, poised for rebuke, and rather approached it a little more delicately, explaining that your use of the work was for the purpose of glorying God and evangelizing his word and that you make no profit from its use and furthermore, after further reflection, as far as you can determine you believe the work to be from Lynn Taggart not the IHM.
Mr Moose,
I believe that you, like the good sister, miss the mark. Secular copyright law should not enter into iconography, unless it is a case of someone misusing the icon, or profiting from it. I did neither, and only viewed it the way that I would if someone used one of my icons of a saint on his or her feast day: I would be pleased. The icon is not mine, but the Church’s ie, the People of God’s.