Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    Chapter 12—Ellen G. White Was Not A Copyright Infringer

    The “right of an author to a monopoly of his publications is measured and determined by the copyright act.” 1Holmes v. Hurst, p. 1267, 1270. Accordingly, “unless the copyright laws were complied with, publication works an abandonment of all further right.” 2Nebraska v. State General Co., citing Corlies v. Walker, 75 F. 436 (1893). Thus, all of the books listed earlier herein which were published and uncopyrighted which may have been used as sources by Mrs. White could not give rise then or now to any proper or responsible accusation of “copying,” “piracy,” or “plagiarism.” These books included, for example, The Life of Christ by Hanna, The Great Teacher by Harris, Sketches from the Life of Paul by Conybeare and Howson, and the remainder of the uncopyrighted works earlier listed herein under the caption “Library of Congress.”RRPCI 13.1

    A “book—becomes (when not protected by copyright) public property by the act of publication.” 3Ibid. Accordingly, all of the earlier noted published, uncopyrighted works were from the time of publication dedications or gifts to the world at large for anyone or all to use legally, freely and unhesitatingly as they wished to any degree and in any manner, with or without acknowledgements.RRPCI 13.2

    Assuming, however, that all of these earlier works noted herein were copyrighted, could a successful suit have been brought against the early Seventh-day Adventist writer? The answer is again in the negative.RRPCI 13.3

    The issue of copyright infringement, quite simply, is “whether the book of the defendant, taken as a whole, is substantially a copy of the plaintiff.” 4Drury et al., v. Ewing et al., 7F. Cas. 1113 (No. 4095) 1 Bond 540, 13-16 C.O. Bull. 803, 809 (1862). No critics have in any of the comparisons set forth earlier herein alleged nor could they have equitably alleged than any book of Ellen G. White’s, taken as a whole, is legally substantially a copy of her predecessors. The meaning of “substantially a copy” is well expressed in law and requires that the value of or effort involved in an original work be “sensibly diminished,” or the “labors of the original author (be) substantially to an injurious extent, appropriated,” that in effect the life, body and meaning of the earlier work be “taken as a whole” absent the exercise of discretion, skill, judgment or the like.RRPCI 13.4

    Mrs. White’s sternest critics offer the best evidence available supportive of noninfringement. As an example, the “88 different authors and 400 references” refer to The Great Controversy, and it is suggested strongly that such utilization by Mrs. White (if true) of this vast reference material evidences skill and use of common materials and common sources of knowledge, and not merely “colorable alterations and variations only to disguise the use thereof.” 5Emerson v. Davies et al., p. 864-865. It is inconceivable that even if Mrs. White used 88 different authors and 400 references in The Great Controversy, she could have taken the value of any one of the original works to the degree that it be “sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author (be) substantially to an injurious extent, appropriated” by her usages.RRPCI 13.5

    What in The Great Controversy or any other book of Ellen White’s, when “taken as a whole, is substantially a copy” of the works of earlier authors? Here again, when a comparison is equitably made on a one-on-one, book-versus-book basis, and such is the only comparison that can be properly made in law, nowhere have we found the books of Ellen G. White to be virtually the “same plan and character throughout” as those of her predecessors. 6Drury et al., v. Ewing et al., p. 809. Nor have we found or have critics made reference to any intention of Ellen White to “supersede the other(s) in the market with the same class of readers and purchasers by introducing no considerable new matter or little or nothing new except colorable deviations.” 7Drury et al., v. Ewing et al., p. 809.RRPCI 14.1

    The sheer “compilation” of the works of Ellen G. White necessarily reflects her labor and skill. So long as she had not, and the evidence clearly establishes that she did not, draw from any prior works “to a substantial degree,” she remains well within the legal bounds of “fair use.” Moreover, so long as the materials were selected from a variety of sources, and were “arranged and combined with certain chosen passages of the text of the original work, and in a manner showing the exercise of discretion, skill, learning, experience, and judgment,” the use was “fair.” 8Lawrence v. Dana, p. 1606.RRPCI 14.2

    It is also necessary in judging the writings of Ellen G. White to reflect upon the nature, character and influence of these writings which perhaps are best described by Uriah Smith from Life Sketches (469 et. seq.) as follows:RRPCI 14.3

    “Their fruit is such as to show that the source from which they spring is the opposite of evil.

    1. They tend to the purest morality.—They reveal the devices of Satan.—They have aroused and rearoused us to greater consecration to God, more zealous efforts for holiness of heart, and greater diligence in the cause and service of our Master.RRPCI 14.4

    2. They lead us to Christ.

    3. They lead us to the Bible.

    4. They have brought comfort and consolation to many hearts.”

    Writings of the relationships of God, Satan and men necessarily create resemblances and often times striking resemblances. However, no prior author had ever before united in one work that which was authored by Mrs. White, nor do any of her critics so allege. Critics compare words, phrases, similarities thereof, but never compare the works of Mrs. White “as a whole.” One reason suggested is that evidence would indicate that though “materials have been selected from a variety of sources,” the same evidence strongly indicates the materials thus selected were “arranged and combined... in a manner showing the exercise of discretion, skill, learning, experience and judgment.” It is the latter areas where critics fear to tread because had they done such, their only conclusions could be and would be that the writings of Mrs. White did not constitute infringements of even assumed to be copyrighted works of her predecessors.RRPCI 15.1

    In summary, and again with the assumption that all earlier works were copyrighted, if the issue were court-tested between 1850 and 1915, Ellen G. White would be emphatically held not to be a copyright infringer.RRPCI 15.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents