In response to my email I received this:
Dear Sister,
To clarify: I am a father of eight, I work more than full time (50+ hours a week for the last several years) and am an iconographer who has very little time to paint these days. I do not have time to write letters, and so I simply apply the gospel principle: I try to treat others as I would like to be treated. In this case, if someone used one of my icons of a saint to post something on that saint’s feast day I would be pleased. If he or she acknowledged me I would be more pleased. If he or she did not I would be no more than mildly annoyed. If they were using my icons for some nefarious purpose, of course, or profiting from them, that would be a different story.
For, dear sister, icons are not yours or mine, but the Church’s. “Copyright law” really does not apply unless they are being misused or being used for profit. Secular laws do not apply in the spiritual dimension of iconography. A genuine iconographer is a channel for God, and his or her work is sacramental. I used your icon, which is very nice, to honor St Teresa. I made no money from this, but as you objected I removed it.
I wonder if you heard a word that I wrote in response to your initial letter. Iconography is not about you, or your originality, or, Lord have mercy, about money.
A friend who knows about such things has told me that if I use an image from the internet and someone objects, all I have to do is delete it and there are no further ramifications. But perhaps your lawyer knows better. Fine; I am sure that the National Catholic Reporter would love the headline “Nun Sues Catholic Father of Eight.”
Curiously, I was taught by sisters from your community when I was a child, at St John’s Catholic School in Fenton, Michigan in the mid 60s. It was a strange time. The only nun I have really fond memories of is Sr Mary Lorenzo, who was kind and maybe even a saint. The others ranged from smug to amusing to malevolent. And I watched as your community went from uptight Irish Jansenists to folk-singers in mini-skirts.
And now, fifty years later, an IHM sister, vowed to live in poverty, is threatening to sue me for using one of her icons to honor a saint.
This is rich in irony.
peace,
Daniel Nichols
Daniel,
Yes, this is rich in irony. Our Catholic Church still has a long way to go. Let pray for Sr. Nancy.
You are an excellent writer. And very funny. You had me in stitches. It was like reading “Growing up Catholic.”
Peace,
Tony
Dude….
Icons should be for catechisis and evangelization, not for profit for copyright lawyers. She also does not understand the Internet very well, her own website is violating such strict copyright policies, as her icons are being copied to the hard drive of every computer that looks at them.
I fail to understand the purpose of an icon that nobody sees.
I’m glad you deleted the picture of her. I prefer Darth Vader.
My goodness.
This is their copyright notice: “All text, images, graphics, designs and other materials on this website (“site”) are subject to the copyrights and other intellectual property rights of the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary ,copyright 2004. This means no images may be printed or distributed.”
It’s not clear that “printed or distributed” would include simply posting on the
web. You certainly did not “print” it nor “distribute,” at least in the ordinary
meaning of distribute.
Moreover, the copyright law, title 17 of the U.S. Code, contains a provision for fair use, which runs,
§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Based on her lawyer’s inept interpretation, anybody viewing her website has violated her copyright. This is the reason copyleft was invented- and I urge Daniel and everybody else to copyleft their websites whenever possible.
I prefer Creative Commons License Chooser:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Is it wrong of me to want to somehow interpret Sister Nancy’s behavior charitably?
It just smarts to think a nun really would rather have $$ than have her icons used in tribute to the saints. And that she would threaten a father of 8 and fellow artist with legal action over it.
Can I put my fingers in my ears and go “lalalala”?
Perhaps she has a mean Mother Superior on her tail? Maybe she is just somebody posing to be a nun? Maybe she has been abducted by aliens and doesn’t know what she is doing?
The latest letter lends a good deal of credence to the Mean Mother Superior Theory, and it also makes the most sense
I hear you, the whole thing is just so bizarre. I mean, I have seen people complain about images used on blogs before without citation, but usually they just ask for citation to be added. Strange. Very strange.
I know; it is sort of surreal. However, I was taught from late elementary to junior high by this order, and I feel vindicated in always thinking that they were pretty dense (aside from one saintly older nun)…