What wins: Freedom of religion or copyright?
http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/godblessamerica.html
had a rather explicit copyright notice at the top. It struck me as I thought about posting it to a page, whether or not I could quote the song without permission from the copyright holder.
The thing of it is, the song explicitly states that it is a prayer, and then directs that prayer to God. So it seems that using it should be a right afforded to us under the free exercise of religion clause of the first amendment.
So I wonder, what takes precedence? A person's legitimate claim to ownership of their creative work, or another person's free exercise of religion?
[+] [-] dalke|12 years ago|reply
(See http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/11/opinion/greene-berlin/inde... )
There's no freedom of religion issue here. Your religious principles don't require you to sing that song, do they?
If they do, I'm curious how the text of a Jewish songwriter, concerning Armistice Day, became a part of your religion. Did your religion start after 1938, or change its tenets?
FWIW, there is a religious exception in copyright law. Sect. 110[3] says "(3) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly;" is not an infringement of copyright.
What you described does not fit that category.
Since the words are on Wikipedia, you can probably not worry about it.
[+] [-] h4pless|12 years ago|reply
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
Belief in God is a pretty big establishment of many religions, and the free exercise of such an establishment includes the recitation of such prayers asking for his help. In as much, I believe there is a freedom of religion issue here and I do not understand the amendment to indicate that religious requirement to be necessary for protection under the first amendment.
My curiosity lies more with your 4th paragraph. Has anyone ever raised a constitutional argument for any use of a copyrighted work outside of the scope you have mentioned, which looks to be very clear that it only applies to religious gatherings, or has anyone questioned what constitutes a "place of worship" in our modern age? Is it completely beyond reason that someone could argue that the internet is their "place of worship"? Many people attend all sorts of religious ceremonies online. And their right to do that is I believe protected by the first amendment and I don't believe arguing peoples beliefs are really ever deserving of an argument.
[branching off to address the 3rd paragraph and question
To your other question that seems slightly off topic but seemed provoking, the reason these words became spiritually meaningful to me is that they describe a time in our nation's history when we were fighting a war that the American people had very little say in, in a foreign land and the best they could do was pray to God to see the country that they loved through.
There are a lot of things going on in and outside this country that most people can't do anything about more than pay attention to what's happening and hoping (/praying) for the best. So it seemed relatable to the situation we are in now.
And not that it's really any of your business but yes, my religion started after 1938, in fact it started around 2007 when I became disillusioned with the tenets of my religion, could not find a religion without the mandatory governance of law and ritual and cultivated my own belief system given my favorite teachings of many of the principle thinkers to create a system of belief for myself. Is that a problem?
end 3rd paragraph response branch]
[+] [-] h4pless|12 years ago|reply