I can see this is going to go nowhere.  My point still stands, regardless of how poorly it may have been stated or how weak the example may be:  In the absence of specific and complete information, it is unwise to offer more than general opinions of how a given case might be interpreted in a court of law.  That is all I have intended to say, and I think we are brewing one heck of a tempest in the tiniest of teapots.

As for my not going to church, you have absolutely no basis for making such a claim.  I have been to many services, from many different denominations.  I know that most sermons are purely verbal, most not being recorded except as a service for shut-ins.  It is conceivable that some churches will videotape sermons, particularly invited sermons, for distribution to members.  And, it is certainly conceivable that a church would use such distribution to generate donations.  I am not saying it is common practice--likely, it is quite rare--but it is conceivable.  The law, in general, requires the individual to prepare for conceivable, if unlikely, outcomes.  Just check product liability law--which we need not discuss here.

And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the photographic industry and those who wish to earn money in it . . .

Quote from: Professorgb on January 15, 2007, 10:10

I would have a problem with that use because I am not a Christian and I don't necessarily agree with the commentary for which the pastor would use my image...Or the church may engage in not-for-profit activities and still be using my image illegally, such as by freely distributing copies of the sermon, which would be an illegal use of the image.

Here in lies the problem. Since you don't go to church you're not familiar with a sermon and so don't realize that the sermon isn't normally printed. The image is being displayed on a screen behind or by the pastor while he speaks. There is no distributing or printing going on here.

You are correct that I need to distinguish between the non-profit status of the church and the use of the image. However you go on to make an incorrect conclusion from this. The distrobution of the sermon, if it were to happen, would not be for-profit. The only distinction that would matter is if the church was using the image in a for-profit manner. Distributing a sermon would not be a for-profit enterprise because they wouldn't be selling the sermon.

I think it is interesting that you say not to make "hard and fast" claims when you are infact doing that very thing. You say that by freely distributing copies of the sermon the church would be doing something illegal. That statement is the fallacy of which you speak. Can you cite a case where a church was found guilt of copyright infringement for distributing a sermon with an image in it?