The LORD's plan for the earth includes and incorporates a plan for every individual.  "Work" (often, though not always, business) takes up the majority of a Christian's waking hours.  Yet a surprising number of Christians (somewhat remarkably) do not consider "work" part of their Christian walk.  For these individuals, "religion" and "God" belong in the home, the family, the church - but not the office.  Not so.

The Bible teaches about human interaction, but also about business, ethics and law.  We are blessed to have a God who not only cares for our personal, physical needs (Matthew 6, Luke 22) but has also established a plan for our business and professional lives. 

Deuteronomy 8 explains that it is God who gives us the power to make wealth, in order to confirm His covenant (8.18), even as it warns us not to fall into the trap of believing that we bear sole responsibility for our professional (and personal) success (8.11-14, 18-20).

Many institutions of higher learning appear not only to neglect the use of Scripture and Biblical principles but to have actually expelled the LORD from the classroom.  Even Christian students are frequently taught to divorce business from faith, as though God's plan did not extend to working life.  Over the next few weeks we will examine various topics related to the legal environment within which U.S. businesses function, discussing both the state of the law and the Biblical principles which provide the Christian professional with both context and foundation.

To those who may have noticed: the blog has been silent for a while, as work and other projects absconded with my available time and energy.  This evening, I begin teaching a business law course at William Jessup University in Rocklin, California (that's Northern California for those unfamiliar with the area).  I will begin teaching a second, similar course in January, which continues through May 2006. 

This blog will track the courses, examining subject matter on a wide range of legal and business topics of interest to Christians.  Tune in and, as always, feel free to email me with questions, whether or not they seem related to the topic at hand. 

Avatars.  

In Blogspeak, Avatars are small images that appear at the top of the blog and serve as a representation of the blogger or the blogger's interests.

Avatars permit bloggers to post either a personal photograph or an alternative, representative image. Two very nice examples of thematic and representational avatars can be found here at HomeschoolBlogger.  MelM uses a very nice picture of a red butterfly and Gena Suarez (aka TOSPUBLISHER) uses a hand-drawn portrait.

But avatars also present a dangerous opportunity for copyright infringement.  Many bloggers use avatars downloaded or "lifted" from the Internet without considering the potential legal implications of their actions.

Images, like written words, are protected by copyright law, whether or not they carry the "copyright" symbol or other formal copyright notice.  Use of a protected image without the permission of the copyright holder is infringement, an illegal act.  More importantly, placing a citation or attribution on the image (such as "photo taken from www.websiteid.com") does not solve the problem because taking an entire image for use on a personal website is not likely to fall within the fair use doctrine.

As we previously discussed, infringement carries liability (and often an award of monetary damages to the copyright holder) even if the infringer did not know his (or her) actions were illegal. 

What is a legally acceptable avatar?

- An image the blogger owns or has a legal right to use (personal photographs or other images used with the specific permission of the artist or photographer)

- An image taken from a website that grants permission for duplication and reproduction of images, provided the images are used in accordance with any posted terms of use.   

- An image on which the copyright has expired (also known as an image in the public domain).  Be careful: the public domain is tricky when applied to images.  Although any copyright on the Sistine Chapel ceiling itself would be long expired, photographers who take pictures of the ceiling still hold the copyright on their photographs  - meaning that the photographs may not be used without permission. 

Confusing?  Here's an easier rule:  photographs of works created before the invention of the camera are probably subject to copyright. 

And an even easier one:  Check with the creator, photographer or artist before using an image taken from the Internet, unless the website grants specific permission for reproduction and use.

Don't make your avatar a defendant.

For those who don't already know, homeschoolblogger.com is a service provided by The Old Schoolhouse Magazine, LLC, publishers of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine.  In addition to providing this very special forum and community for homeschoolers and others, TOS publishes The Old Schoolhouse Magazine, a quarterly publication aimed at homeschool families but containing articles and information which will doubtless interest anyone who works - or lives - with children. 

To find out more about TOS, visit the company website (linked above) or PRMama, TOS' information expert.

Whether or not you read the magazine or blog at HSB, if you're reading this you've been impacted by the TOS community.  Like many other professionals associated with TOS (disclosure: I'm TOS' legal counsel and this isn't a paid or requested plug - this comes from me personally) I've decided to host my blog here to support TOS' efforts to create community not just among homeschool families, but also among Christians throughout the blogosphere.

It's Thanksgiving.  I'm thankful for the opportunity to blog at HSB.  Share the spirit and trackback this entry.  I'm tracking back to PRMama and tipping the hat to her for reminding me that the season for thanks is indeed upon us.

Thanks to TOSPublisher for forwarding the following question (name of requester held because I was not able to seek permission for publication):

"Is there a way to research the copyright status of a work without the assistance of an attorney?"

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, although you may want to consult an attorney before acting on your findings, depending upon what you ultimately choose to do with the research results.

The U.S. Copyright office offers a free electronic search program that permits any Internet user to search the copyright office database.  The website gives search instructions, and offers an electronic pamphlet entitled "How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work".  Unfortunately, the online records only date from 1978 (the copyright office began registering materials in 1891, but entries prior to 1978 were recorded only in "hard copy" in the Catalog of Copyright Entries and must be searched at the copyright office or at one of the public libraries which maintains a set of copyright catalogs. 

This means that although an online search works well for works originally produced (or re-published) after 1978, it will not assist searchers seeking information about books published before that date.  For information about prior works you will need to consult the written catalogs, either at a local library or at the copyright office in Washington, D.C.

Searchers seeking a slightly less expensive solution than private legal counsel but still willing to pay for professional assistance may wish to investigate the search service offered by the copyright office itself.  Office staff will perform searches at a rate of $75 per hour (accurate as of 11/15/2005 but subject to change...please check with the copyright office for current rates) - less than most attorneys, although the resulting information is provided "as-is" and without legal advice as to the status of the works in question.

The copyright office recently announced a new search system, currently scheduled to debut on December 1, 2005.  Check the website for details!

Searchers should be wary.  Searches of copyright registrations are uniquely subject to "false negative" errors due to the nature of copyright law.  While a search can definitely tell you if a work is subject to copyright, a negative search does not necessarily mean that the work in question is not subject to copyright, for several important reasons.  Among these:

1.  Copyright law does not require formal registration of a work in order for copyright protection to attach.  Registration is required prior to filing suit to enforce protection, but this means that an apparently "unprotected" work may well be subject to full legal protection despite its absence from the copyright office.  Always assume that a work created after 1978 is subject to copyright.

2.  Unregistered works created prior to 1978 may also be protected by common law copyright and statutes (laws) which permit registration of certain works at any time during the 28-year period following initial creation and publication.  For works created in 1978, this period will not expire until 2006.  Additional statutes permit later registration of works under other special circumstances.

3.  Searchers unfamiliar with Boolean searching or other forms of search language used by the copyright office search programs may inadvertently “miss” key terms required to bring up the desired works.

4.  Delays at the copyright office may result in registered materials not “showing up” on searches.

There is no reason why any individual seeking to learn the copyright status of a given work (or locate specific works) should not start the process by searching the copyright office.  Learning that a work is subject to protection enables searchers to locate the copyright holder for purposes of obtaining use rights (or make the decision not to use the work in question due to its copyright status).  When an individual search fails to locate information, the searcher can evaluate whether or not to pursue a more thorough search with professional assistance.

A big thanks to Melonie Murray, TOS' own PRMama (who blogs personally at www.Homeschoolblogger.com/Melm) for a fabulous shout out on the PRMama blog!  Now that I've stopped blushing enough that the text doesn't come through in pink and red...I'll do my best to continue the series on intellectual property, law and Christian thought.

Some may have noticed that this blog no longer permits comments.  I appreciate all of your positive comments and would love to hear from you by email (see the link at the top of the blog) if you have questions or comments.  I may respond to some questions here, and others by email.  If you send a question by email, please let me know if I can use your name and link to your blog.  I won't link to blogs with obscene or obnoxious content.  Not just because they violate the TOU...but also because my readers don't want to see it.

Some may also have noticed that the blog has been silent for a couple of weeks.  A nice, solid post-GodBlogCon flu and catching up afterward kept me busy for a while, but now that the work load has cleared and I've completed my article for the Winter, 2006 issue of  The Old Schoolhouse Magazine I can finally get back to the blogosphere.

Look for a couple of new "regular features" here at the blog, including regular entries on breaking issues in intellectual property news.  Of course, we will continue our examination of copyright, as well as starting to explore trademark law.  When I resume teaching at William Jessup University at the end of December, I will also be posting a "weekly review and roundup" on business law topics relevant to Christian businesspeople and students of business.

It's nice to be back and blogging.

Jay from Cleveland posted an interesting comment on his blog relating to the lawsuit against a Wisconsin grandfather whose grandson downloaded movies off the Internet. 

There are many legal issues related to parental (or in this case, grandparental) responsibility for the acts of minor children under their control.  The law has chosen to hold adults responsible for the behavior of minor children under certain circumstances, often when the adults' negligence or lack of legally appropriate supervision resulted in the minor committing a serious crime.  This alone surprises many adults, who either did not realize they could be held responsible for the illegal acts of their children or disagree with this form of legal responsibility.  Whether or not this legal liability should extend to grandparents has added another area for debate.

This story interests me for a completely different reason.  According to the AP's story, "Lawrence (the grandfather) said his grandson was 12 and unaware it was illegal" to download full-length movies off the Internet.

The story does not indicate whether or not the child in question was homeschooled or attended a public or private school.  The story does not mention the child's parents or whether the grandfather was the primary legal guardian.  

Here is my issue:  12 years old is the equivalent of sixth or seventh grade, depending on birthdate and educational system.  By 12, a child should have at least some understanding of property rights and should recognize that one cannot take from the Internet "for free" that which one would otherwise need to buy and pay for.

Children need to be taught basic intellectual property rights as part of elementary education.  "Thou shalt not steal," did not apply only in the time of Moses and does not apply only to forms of property available in Moses' day.   We as parents have the obligation to teach our children both the law ("stealing is wrong") and the subjects to which it applies.

By implication, the grandson in the story referenced above would not have downloaded the movies "had he known it was wrong" (we can debate this point, but for the moment let's give him the benefit of the doubt). 

The problem, then, does lie with the grandfather after all - or with whatever adult failed to tell this child that movies (and other creative works) belong to someone, and that taking them without payment or permission is just as wrong as stealing the DVD from the Blockbuster on the corner.

Grokster.com has been  forced to shut down following court determinations that its peer to peer (P2P) file sharing service constituted an illegal infringement of copyright law.

Given the often lax treatment of copyright in the music area, this alone represents a victory. 

There is, however, a greater victory in this story.  The front page at Grokster.com currently reads: "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal" and "There are legal services for downloading music and movies.  This service is not one of them."  Not only has a popular source of illegal copyright infringement been shut down, but the provider has openly admitted to wrongdoing.

It is likely that this confession of guilt comes by order of the court or as part of a settlement agreement between Grokster and the copyright holders whose rights the Grokster site helped to infringe.  Nonetheless, the willingness to admit guilt (wrong, sin) when confronted with wrongdoing furthers Biblical principles (despite Grokster's defense to the original charges, which sounded more like the excuses of Saul than the humility of David).

According to Dan Rather, "News is something people need to know which someone, somewhere, doesn't want them to know. All the rest is advertising."

This is an interesting statement (I won't say "good news").  Why?  Because there are millions of people out there who don't want us to continue spreading the Good News about Christ, the Bible and the fact that there is an absolute Truth, regardless of the liberal worldview currently offered by the mainstream media.  These are often the same people who disagree with homeschooling because they believe homeschoolers teach their children the "wrong" things (by definition...things the detractors don't want them to know, or at least don't want them to know to the exclusion of other ideas).

Rather made this comment during a speech at the Maine Center for the Arts.  Elsewhere in the speech, he warned listeners to "be critical of" new media (which includes blogs).  One might think, from his comments, that he doesn't want his listeners to hear what the bloggers are saying. 

Which - by Rather's definition - makes bloggers, Christians and homeschoolers a source of ....

(you knew this was coming)

.... news.

Voice in the Wilderness is an evangelical Christian blog run by Travis Fell, a blogger I met at the GodBlogCon earlier this month.  Although his blog focuses on issues facing Texas, several of his commentaries are relevant (and all of them are interesting) to a much wider Christian audience.  He is currently discussing the proposed Texas Marriage Amendment, an issue of concern to everyone interested in protecting traditional, Biblical views of marriage and family.

We interrupt this Blog for an update on the larger Christian blogging community:

Last weekend the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University hosted GodBlogCon.  This unique conference - which we may hope was but the first of many - gave Christian bloggers an opportunity to meet, confer and learn about the ever-expanding portion of the Blogosphere dedicated to "seek[ing] first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness."

Highlights of the event included a talk by John Mark Reynolds, who blogs here and whose opinions on blogging, Christianity and philosophy should be included on a Christian bloggers' "to read" list and a panel featuring Dr. Reynolds, Mark Roberts (who blogs at www.MarkdRoberts.com) and Tod Bolsinger, pastors with a great deal of wisdom to share.

Special thanks to conservative talk show host, blogger and bestselling author Hugh Hewitt, both for moderating the panel and for sitting down to talk about blogging for an interview scheduled to appear in the Winter 2006 issue of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine.  His book, aptly titled Blog and more thoroughly titled Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World, is a must-read for anyone considering entering the blogosphere and formed the basis for a most interesting conversation last Friday night.  Thank you, Hugh!

The conference also provided an opportunity for Christian bloggers to meet and open discussions on topics such as community (already developing at a record pace at HomeschoolBlogger.com) and responsibility. 

Moving forward, we must all remember that we were bought with a price, and that as Christian bloggers we have a unique obligation to Blog to the best of our abilities and to the glory of God.  Thank you to Biola and all of the speakers for providing this opportunity, to The Old Schoolhouse Magazine for providing me with the opportunity to attend, and to the LORD for bringing us all together and seeing us safely home.