Thursday, April 19, 2007

Your point is not well taken

The National Enquirer-esque headlines are a regular feature of the deceptively-named "Saving Bellevue" website, and one of the more recent ones continues the tradition. I quote thusly, and like so (yet without the large font): "Parliamentarian and Pastor Barry McCarty's church in Texas, Valley View Christian Church split in 2004. The off shoot (sic) is Cornerstone Christian Church He (sic) was the Parliamentarian for our March 25th Business Meeting."

Get it? See, Dr. McCarty had a church split under his watch. So, he must be part of an effort to make Bellevue split, right? Why, of course!

Well, no.

With regard to the so-called "split," it wasn't much of one. Dr. McCarty became Valley View's new pastor, about 150 people flared off to follow Valley View's old pastor preach at a Dallas hotel, and Valley View was just left decimated--with only 1200 people left to attend their church. Granted, an 11% drop in membership is nothing to sneeze at, and none of us is privy to just what level of acrimony was present during those members' departures, but according to the National Enqui... um, sorry, the so-called "Saving Bellevue" reference, no one needs to know anything else about Barry McCarty other than that his church split.

A couple of things to consider here:

1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't at least one group in the past splintered away from Bellevue to form its own church? I have yet to read a condemnation of Ramsey Pollard on the so-called "Saving Bellevue" site for presumably mishandling his pastoral duties to the point that members broke away to start what is now known as Second Baptist Church in Memphis. To be clear, I don't know that Pastor Pollard ever necessarily mishandled his pastoral duties--my point is that "Saving Bellevue" should either be consistent, or remove their latest attempt at gossip-mongering.

2) Dr. McCarty has been the Southern Baptist Convention's parliamentarian since 1986. If you'd like to read an extensive article on the man, Baptist Press has one here.

3) Since you probably didn't follow that link, here's a sample from it. As you read it, see if anything sounds familiar about it--quoting thusly, and like so:

Preparing for his first convention, 1986 in Atlanta, McCarty studied what had happened the year before in Dallas. He said that while some of the points of order offered were well-intentioned, they stymied the convention’s deliberative process to the point he suspected that some messengers were raising the points to “confuse and frustrate the chair.”

“The thing I remember most about the convention in Atlanta was that they threw everything at us, including the kitchen sink,” McCarty recalled. “It was pretty obvious to me that people who were opposed to the president had found that in the point of order they had a way to harass the chair.”

McCarty said he gave Stanley a legitimate way to dispatch such points in quick fashion: “I recall one thing I had taught Dr. Stanley that became his favorite expression: ‘Your point of order is not well taken.’ But when someone raised a legitimate point of order, we took immediate corrective action,” said McCarty, who noted the 1986 Convention had an unusually large number, between 60-70, points-of-order raised.


4) Dr. McCarty was a personal friend of Pastor Rogers'; in addition to serving as SBC President in 1979, Pastor Rogers served as SBC President in 1986 and 1987 with Dr. McCarty as parliamentarian. As he noted in the recent business meeting (and as is obliquely referenced in the aforementioned Baptist Press article), Dr. McCarty treasured his friendship with Pastor Rogers. Perhaps some in attendance missed that reference?

Now you know more than "Saving Bellevue" evidently wanted you to know about Barry McCarty, the incredibly well-qualified parliamentarian who served Bellevue during the March 25th business meeting. Why do you think that none of this information made it onto that site?

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Apparently, there's nothing that the so-called "Saving Bellevue" folks won't bootleg. I see today that they made a very poor recording of Mark Dougharty today, which continues a trend of surreptitiously recording people and events. Why? From whence comes their compulsion to keep unapologetically breaking these types of laws over, and over, and over, and over again? I mean, I half-expect to see bootleg copies of 300 and Meet The Robinsons for sale on their site!

102 comments:

Wolf Hunt said...

Mike
I think Second Baptist happened when Dr. Pollard was pastor.

Mike Bratton said...

Quite right; I stand corrected, and will amend the article accordingly. Second began in July, 1962--for some reason, I was thinking 1972.

Your point is well taken. :)

--Mike

SpringerSpaniel said...

Seems to me that they should change the heading of that page from

"Never sacrifice truth for unity" to

"Twisting the truth to fit our agenda... we are united to destroy Bellevue"

Oh... wait... Steve Gaines is the one destroying Bellevue... they are simply pointing out the fact, in a true, Christlike spirit.

bepatient said...

wasn't there another "split" when we moved to the Cordova campus?

michelle mann said...

What caused the split to Second Baptist?

bepatient said...

I know there was a group of people who left over the purchase of the chandelier.

And of course there were quite a few people who left when Dr. Rogers came.

solomon said...

'National Enquirer' - what a perfect description of the "Saving Bellevue" site's appearance.

I've read that a couple of seminaries are studying it and the NBBCOF to prepare their graduates for dissention when they assume pastorships.

What a 'joy' to be a part of history in the making.

bepatient said...

From the "other" blog:

Mom4 said...

Isn't it unique that to date, all of the "speculation, inuendo, rumors and gossip" brought out on this blog have proven to be truth? HMMMMM?
When it ALL comes out, reckon the bratton clique will slither back under their rock?


First of all, I will not condone the actions of that blog by posting there so I would like to comment to all of you guys-

1. NOT all of the gossip and innuendo has been true, it is just that no one remembers all the other stuff- the 30K check to DG, MD being "fired", etc.

2. Mike- you now have a "clique" and we slither!! How proud you must be!!

3. Here the go assuming the worst- MD (who they vilified for months) will now be another beloved minister who has been forced out.

Karen said...

FYI, Charlie Fox wasn't too far off. I just got this off of savingbellevue.com. He may not have gotten fired, but the jist of the information provided by Charlie was true - Mark D is leaving Bellevue:

Also, Ray Saba has written another letter that's posted on Savingbellevue.com if you're so inclined to read the words of this wonderful man.

Dear XXXX

Today in the Staff Luncheon, our Associate Pastor, Mark Dougharty, shared that Dianne and he believe that God has completed His work through them at Bellevue Baptist Church . Mark shared that the call to leave has been just as clear as his call from the Lord to come to Bellevue .

Mark has a real desire to share more with the entire Bellevue family about God's leading in his life.

Accordingly, Brother Steve is setting aside time in both of the worship services this Sunday morning to allow Mark to share his heart. Plans are being formed to set aside a time to more fully express our love and appreciation to this couple for their service to our Lord and to Bellevue Baptist Church .

Please pray for Mark and Dianne as they prepare themselves for God's plans for their future.

Your brother,
Bryan Miller

Karen said...

bepatient,

Give me a minute and I'll go over to the "other" blog and let mom4 know that "slither" is an inappropriate way to talk about anybody. This name calling really is getting to me. I'm ready to write everyone off and quit church all together. If this is how it's gonna be, I give up!

karen

bepatient said...

Karen,

I hope you know I don't think of you like that- but I am just so tired of stuff like this. We can disagree all day long but there is no need in the world to resort to comments like that.

Don't give up on church ;) God says not to forsake fellowship- no church will ever get it just right, but we have to go anyway and do the best we can!

Mike Bratton said...

bepatient said...
From the "other" blog:

Mom4 said...

Isn't it unique that to date, all of the "speculation, inuendo, rumors and gossip" brought out on this blog have proven to be truth? HMMMMM?


Hmm, indeed. Do we have to go back and recap the things that weren't true? Personally, I have better things to do.

When it ALL comes out, reckon the bratton clique will slither back under their rock?

Hard to believe a mother uses that sort of language, isn't it? Nevertheless, she is someone in need of prayer.

First of all, I will not condone the actions of that blog by posting there so I would like to comment to all of you guys-

Recon flights from the Closed Forum fly through here on a regular basis, actually.

1. NOT all of the gossip and innuendo has been true, it is just that no one remembers all the other stuff- the 30K check to DG, MD being "fired", etc.

Well, thanks for going to the trouble... :)

2. Mike- you now have a "clique" and we slither!! How proud you must be!!

Let me fully disengage my "snarky" mode for a moment.

I'm not proud in the least, though it has been amazing to see just who keeps up with what I write, and the support that has come in from across the United States--and even from other countries.

Much of that support has been timely, as the Lord has used it to buoy my outlook when things such as that "slithering clique" crack, made by someone who would no doubt refrain from making such slurs face-to-face, are sent my way.

It's not the worst bomb that's been tossed, however. I have received actual death threats from the anti-Bellevue "clique," and I have a friend who was blackmailed by anti-Bellevue types who threatened to use "speculation, inuendo, rumors and gossip" against him. They didn't have any facts, or evidence of wrongdoing, but that didn't stop them.

Which is why we must pray for them all the more.

3. Here the go assuming the worst- MD (who they vilified for months) will now be another beloved minister who has been forced out.

Mark's my friend. Whether they say "Poor thing" or "Don't let the doorknob hit you" doesn't worry me. He did a difficult job to the best of the ability God granted him, and did it much better than any naysayer could in his place.

Again, pray for those people, before the bitterness they're soaking in begins to ferment.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

Karen said...
bepatient,

Give me a minute and I'll go over to the "other" blog and let mom4 know that "slither" is an inappropriate way to talk about anybody. This name calling really is getting to me. I'm ready to write everyone off and quit church all together. If this is how it's gonna be, I give up!

karen


Obviously, you don't have to be a part of that nonsense over there, Karen, and as a friend I've been concerned about the negative effect their behavior will have on my friends who are involved there.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

And while I'm thinking about it...

Karen said...
FYI, Charlie Fox wasn't too far off. I just got this off of savingbellevue.com. He may not have gotten fired, but the jist of the information provided by Charlie was true - Mark D is leaving Bellevue:


No, actually, Charlie was completely wrong. Charlie said, and I quote him thusly and like so, that Mark was "fired." Since Mark was not fired, and since there's more than a subtle difference between being summarily fired and voluntarily answering God's call to move on from your present position, Charlie's information was wrong.

He even apologized, in a way. Not for spreading "speculation, inuendo, rumors and gossip," but for the inaccuracy of his source.

Just for the record.

--Mike

Amy said...

Mike,
When I saw what you wrote I found the video you were referencing.In the five minutes I watched, I noted the following, which may be why BBC Admin. wanted the videos pulled. If you use RRoO, you need to play by the rules, not just the rules that suit yourself. The way the crowd was voting, BM should of just followed the simple rules, he probably would of gotten what he wanted and wouldn't have to worry what folks might figure out.

"Your Point is Not Well Taken"

When BM shut that guy's Point of Order down, because he questioned moving the motion to a vote at this time because members had been given no time to consider the committee nominees, it was not well taken because BM didn't want it- not because he was out of line. He was also wrong about acknowledging a call to vote that is shouted out- that motion is one that must be recognized by the chair, just like an adjournment. Plus, the guy that wanted to amend the motion with the conflict of interest concerning committee members was valid in doing so. An amendment can add, subtract, alter, even completely change a motion.

Just Sayn'

lovecakes said...

"'National Enquirer' - what a perfect description of the "Saving Bellevue" site's appearance."

I was thinking Drudge Report, but y'all probably dig Drudge Report.

lovecakes said...

By the way, greetings from the pureland. I hope you all have enjoyed health, happiness and prosperity while I've been away.

solomon said...

amy,

Bellevue wanted the videos pulled because they were improperly obtained and posted illegally. They have asked Mr. Haywood not to film in the sanctuary before, and explained to him that displaying his videos in this way violated copyright. Since his stated purpose in the past was to film the 'touchdown whooping and hollering' and publicize it (i.e. to ridicule the congregation for all the world to see) then I have to agree with Jim Barnwell's request. Nothing constructive would come from that. Can you think of anything?

junk99mail said...

solomon,
As I posted in two threads ago on this blog, I could not find a legal basis for BBC, Inc. to claim copyright on public meetings. BBC Inc. may have had other reasons to want the videos pulled from public view, but I don't believe they were posted illegally. I'd concede if proven wrong, and I'd be willing to listen to any counter points to those I made previously.

Mike Bratton said...

junk99mail said...
solomon,
As I posted in two threads ago on this blog, I could not find a legal basis for BBC, Inc. to claim copyright on public meetings. BBC Inc. may have had other reasons to want the videos pulled from public view, but I don't believe they were posted illegally. I'd concede if proven wrong, and I'd be willing to listen to any counter points to those I made previously.


I only have a touch of familiarity with this sort of thing, so rather than admittedly bogging down in the minutiae, let me suggest this scenario to you, thusly and like so.

Joe Blow visits Megachurch X (sounds like an anime cartoon title, hmm?) and is impressed with the pastor's delivery. Next Sunday, he brings a video camera to the service, and nonchalantly begins taping the music and the sermon. After he's got a couple in the bag, he starts up a "ministry" where he airs the bootlegs on, let's say, the Internet.

He solicits some coin from those who peruse the ongoing series of videos, and gives it all to his favorite charity--Joe Blow.

Any church has the legal, moral, and ethical ownership of what goes on within its walls, else the Joe Blow Foundation would be rolling in the benjamins.

--Mike

LegalBeagle said...

JunkMail said: "I'd concede if proven wrong, and I'd be willing to listen to any counter points to those I made previously."

What was done here is really a slam dunk case for infringement. The videos posted by filming the I-Mag screens.

Everything shown on those screens was filmed by Bellevue using their cameras. The segues (the screens that popped up from time to time) were produced by Bellevue.

You can no more record and rebroadcast that without permission than you could record and rebroadcast any television program.

Does it happen every day?
Sure it does.

Does that make it legal?
Of course not.

All this being said, I'd be in favor of the church posting the video of the meeting on their website. There is nothing there to be ashamed of. Among other things you can see is that there was indeed a clear majority who voted to end the meeting. So whether you agree with the decision to close or disagree with it, that was the expressed will of the congregation.

Personally I'd have preferred the meeting continue on. There were motions to be brought that needed to be (and would have been) soundly defeated.

solomon said...

junk,

(I wish the short version of your screen name didn't sound so condescending!)

When my girls received their Bibles from the pastor, I asked for permission to tape the services. It was given without any qualifications, both by Larry Thompson's and Jim Barnwell's offices. If I had not received that permission, I would not have taped anything. I would never have dreamed of 'demanding' the right to film, much less post anything on the internet. I don't understand the reason Haywood did that at all.

I don't want people freely roaming the halls of Bellevue with cameras. I don't want anyone and everyone filming what our building looks like, where the security cameras are, and where the children's ministry is.

Tell me one single thing, just one valid reason for Jim Haywood to post his videos, and I'll seriously consider it. All Bellevue members received notice about the meeting, and had opportunity to attend.

I would like for the business meeting made available for all members to see, but not like that. You tube agrees with me. So does a service called (interestingly enough) 'God tube'.

solomon said...

courtesy of mom4 via the NBBCOF:

bepatient said...
Mike- you now have a "clique" and we slither!! How proud you must be!!

RESPONSE: What else would you rather I call it? A following, a cult, a band of merry men (and women)???


Perhaps she would like to crush our skulls?

Maybe we can at least bruise her heal...

oc said...

Solomon says. Maybe we can at least bruise her heal...

Do you even know what you are saying?

junk99mail said...

Mike,
"Megachurch X" anime -- man, there's got be a market for that!

Both you and legalbeagle make interesting and well reasoned points, but I still don't see how BBC would own the copyright. Copyright law is intended to protect the intellectual property of the creator of original material. If a person writes something, or performs their own original song or composition, or engages in extemporaneous public speech, that person is the owner of the copyright (unless commissioned by an employer to do the work and under agreement that the copyright will belong to the employer and not the employee).

Let's say I took some pages from a book, retyped and reformatted it, added some fancy graphics, or even put it on video along with some nice transitions, etc. No matter how much effort I put into it, I would still not own the copyright -- the author would. And if someone then copied what I had done and redistributed it, I would not have any legal basis to claim copyright infringement. Only the author would.

If someone sings a song that is copyrighted material of another artist, and if BBC records it, then BBC publishes the performance (on the Web, on CD, etc.), BBC would be in violation of the copyright, and the original artist could bring legal action. And if I made copies of the BBC recording and distributed them, I would also be in violation of copyright ... but it would still be the original artist that had a basis for legal action against me, not BBC.

Following the same principles, BBC would not own the copyright to a public BBC meeting -- the ones who spoke at the meeting would -- unless everyone who spoke was reciting material that BBC, Inc. owns the copyright to, or unless they were all employees speaking on behalf of the organization with a prior agreement that their speech would be BBC property.

If one is talking about a pastor preaching a sermon, the copyright could either belong to the pastor or to the church, depending on whether there was a prior arrangement as to whether the copyright belonged to the employee or the employer.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Please explain to me how I can be wrong about this. I'm still willing to be shown my error. I am also willing to accept, "Ya know, you're right", if anyone thinks so. :)

Amy said...

Sol, Mike, Legal Beagle,

It may be illegal to broadcast the business meeting. However, members have a right to examine the minutes of a meeting in accordance to the non-profit law, so BBC should post them on the web site for members to see. GBC does their business meetings. Maybe someone will ask to see them.


Sol-
I still think the reason for the BBC Powers That Be to not want this meeting broadcast was it was obviously a manipulated meeting, and the rules weren't followed. At least in the five minutes I saw, it would be very easy to make that case. And, the BBC Admin. would have had a better case when they followed procedure and majority ruled, because the minority truly would have been heard, and wouldn't have had much of an arguement. We can agree to disagree,but I call it like I see it....

junk99mail said...

Solomon,
It's ok, I kinda like "junk" as a nickname--it's unique!

My points are only on the matter of legality concerning copyright. The propriety or benefits of posting the recordings are another matter.

As to the benefits, my personal feelings are like those of legalbeagle -- I can't see where it would harm BBC to post or otherwise distribute the videos themselves, as a service to those of the congregation or interested public who were not able to attend (provided BBC received permission to do so from all the speakers, who I believe to be the true copyright holders). Unless someone at BBC is ashamed or embarrased by any of the content (which I doubt is the case).

As to the propriety of someone other than BBC posting videoa of the meeting (a matter of what is right or appropriate, rather than a matter of what is legally permissible), it does seem questionable to me for those associated with savingbellevue.com to have them posted or linked on their site (simply because I an unsure of their motives for doing so).

junk99mail said...

oc,
I think solomon realized he was placing himself, et al, in the role of the devil in his play on words, but that he was doing so tongue in cheek. As in, "those folks consider us evil." Right, sol?

General Henry M. Robert said...

It was interesting to see a parliamentarian with those credentials make so many mistakes.

Some mistakes seemed to favor the Empire while others favored the Alliance. In some cases it is hard to say which side may have been helped or hindered by an error in procedure.

Nice case study. Too bad it ended so soon.

oc said...

Ok, Junk, maybe. But what is the purpose of that?

solomon said...

oc and junk,

Yes, I know exactly what I was saying, and it was tongue in cheek. I'm so very, very tired of being called names by professing Christians.

"Never, ever dialogue with you-know-who..."

"Blind..."

"Trained seals..."

"Ring kissers..."

"What are you hiding???"

"Stay away from my children..."

I never wanted anything but peace on the NBBCOF. I'm to the point where I agree with the troll 'arminius', that peace won't happen until Christ returns.

solomon said...

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

oc said...

Solomon,

So, what was the purpose of it?

junk99mail said...

oc,
I probably shouldn't be speaking for solomon, but I suspect that the purpose was to express some frustration in a self-depricating manner. We all have to blow off steam over these distressing conflicts in some way! :)

solomon,
But you gotta admit, "ring kissers" is pretty funny ...

oc said...

Junk,
ok, I accept your explanation. Then it goes for the other bloggers on the other blog too.

solomon said...

junk,
Thanks.
Some of the names might be funny under certain conditions, but the underlying attitude is everything.

Amy,
We will have to disagree. The rules might not have been properly followed, but the meeting was a learning experience for everyone. The leadership does not have anything to hide (concerning the meeting anyway), and I expect the minutes to be made available soon. I also hope that since many members voted to continue, that the church will seriously consider another meeting soon.

Jim Haywood has yet to show me that he has anyone's best interest at heart but his own. I don't know him, but I've heard he has a good reputation. I don't discount that, but some of what he has written is very mean-spirited. I also think his break with IDC suggests that he wants things done his own way or not at all.

The church wanted the videos pulled because he was the one who published them. IMO

bepatient said...

Have you ever been watching the news when they do a report on, say, Memphis in May and they pan the crowd and there is one random guy who has his face blurred out?

When they do those crowd shots they do not have to go and get a release from every single person they catch on camera. What they have to do is remove the person who asks them to not show their face.

BBC owns the copyright to whatever they film (which would be anything that shows up on those screens)- the "secret" taper might have had a leg to stand had he recorded the people directly, but he did not. And even then ANYONE in those tapes could have demanded their image and voice be removed.

junk99mail said...

bepatient,
Both still and video pictures fall under the same copyright principles I have already outlined. Once again, the key principle of copyright protection is legal protection of an original work.

I can take a picture of anyone and I own the copyright to the picture. A person does not own a copyright to their own appearance or routine actions, as those are generally not original creations. Similarly, a public event can be recorded by anyone present, and, as long as no original creation is involved, the copyright to each individual recording would belong to the one making the recording.

(By the way, when a television program blocks out someone's appearance at that person's request, it is a courtesy to their request, it is not a matter of copyright. Look it up.)

But public speeches, public readings of motions, etc. are the original works of the speaker and/or writer -- to whom the copyright belongs. BBC Inc. can record the meeting, but BBC cannot assert copyright. A "secret" taper can record the image being displayed and recorded on BBC's equipment, and while it may not be a nice thing to do, and it may be in violation of stated BBC policy, since BBC has no legal claim of copyright to what they recorded, they cannot claim that the secret recording violated a copyright that BBC never had.

I have demonstrated a reasonable and dispationate approach and a willingness to be corrected. So far, no one has provided even an attempt to respond to my points with anything approaching a legal arguement. The points I have made are not complex or obtuse. Anyone can demonstrate where I am wrong by citing legal code or precedent, or by cogent argument based on the relevant legal principles. In the absense of such, it is reasonable to assume that I am correct. But continuing to assert that BBC, Inc. owns the copyright to public meetings, in spite of the essence of copyright law, does not make it so.

Mike Bratton said...

Your opinion would suggest that it is impossible for any organization or group to hold copyright over anything at any time. This is, obviously, not the case. However, since everyone else in my home is asleep right now, let me invest a little time in the particulars.

A sermon can be considered to be a "work made for hire," in which case the employer (Bellevue), rather than the employee (the Pastor), holds copyright. The authorized recording of a work for distribution--as in the case of Bellevue's audio and video recordings--reinforces the copyright. From the 1976 Copyright Act, quoted thusly and like so: "'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."

Well, folks are waking up, so I'll cut this short. It is an egregious violation of copyright law to stroll into a church, set up a video camera without permission, and record the goings-on. I trust that answers at least some questions.

--Mike

MusicGuy said...

This from Junk...

"A person does not own a copyright to their own appearance or routine actions, as those are generally not original creations."

I'm just being picky here, and this is somewhat in jest, but there might be some who would dissect this statement down to criticze the author. What about the fact that we are all "original creations" of God? We are created in His image after all!

junk99mail said...

musicguy,
Indeed ... in that case, ultimately God owns all copyrights!
:)

junk99mail said...

Mike,
Nothing I wrote was intended to indicate that an organization can not own a copyright. In my post on April 19, at 9:10 PM, I said the same thing that you did ... the copyright does not belong to the originator if he is an employee under agreement with an employer that the work belongs to the employer ("a work made for hire").

I'm really not intending to be difficult, but that point only reinforces my basic premise. The work for hire exception demonstrates that, when there is no such exception, the copyright falls to the originator (in this case, the ones speaking in the meetings).

All I am getting is a continued reiteration of "BBC owns the copyright", without any refutation or reinterpretation of the legal principles I have put forth. It seems to me that reason and legal precedent are not carrying much weight with those who are committed to defending the position of BBC, Inc., even if that position has no legal merit.

Unless someone can demonstrate my error, I guess we can "agree to disagree". But I prefer to do that only when it is clear to me that the both sides of a discussion have some valid points, and the disagreement is really on which points are most important. In this case, "agreeing to disagree" just means that I accept that others will continue to think they are right when they have provided no basis in fact for thinking that.

Smile, guys ... God loves us anyway, no matter who is right on this! :)

bepatient said...

I guess this is a bad example, but how is it that all those celebrities whose "friends" release sex tapes and the like are able to sue them?

Paris Hilton and Pam Anderson were able to regain control of their tapes as were many others...

All it is is their image and, um, "routine activities" recorded by (sometimes) a third party.

Mike Bratton said...

Junk, you're really going to have to help me out--particularly today, since I'm soaked with sweat from trimming back the hedges around the new homestead (which, apparently, haven't been trimmed in a few years) and perhaps not at the top of my mental game.

The church holds the copyright to what transpires during services, correct? Videotaping them without consent violates that copyright, correct? Distributing them worldwide without consent further violates that copyright, correct?

Obviously, I'm missing something, so if you would bring me up to speed, I'd appreciate it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must wipe the sweat off my chair and get some iced tea...

--Mike

junk99mail said...

Mike,
Too bad you're not in Memphis...my hedges need triming, too. I hate that kind of work!

The answer to your first question holds the key. You asked, "The church holds the copyright to what transpires during services, correct?"

This to me is the critical issue. Why would the church own the copyright, if the church did not own or create the activity being taped? If a BBC employee, working under agreement that their work will be the property of the church (a common clause in many contacts), writes a play, or sermon, or speech, or motion, or song, then BBC owns the copyright. Just the fact that something takes place inside the church and is recorded by the church does not mean that the church owns the copyright.

Example: If Simon & Garfunkel got together and sang "Sounds of Silence" at the FedEx Forum, and the FedEx Forum media staff recorded it, would FedEx Forum own the copyright to the song? No. And if I snuck in a camera phone and recorded the projection of them singing on the screen, and published my recording --- who could sue me for copyright infringement, FedEx Forum, or Simon & Garfunkel?

Another example: If I go to FedEx Kinko's and make a few thousand photopcopies of Steve Gaines' "Morning Manna", and distribute them, who can sue me for copyright infringement? The book publisher, who printed the book? (No, unless the author granted copyright to the publisher.) FedEx Kinko's, whose machines were used to make the copies? (Now that's just silly!) Or only Steve Gaines?

Riddle me that, Batman! :)

Mike Bratton said...

Interesting analogies, I must say, but I don't think either one is apropos due to the transient nature of the relationships you cited.

Paul & Art aren't on staff at FedEx Forum, as they would be renting out the hall for their performance, then moving on. Neither does FedEx Kinko's (am I sensing a trend here?) have an ongoing relationship with an author.

As for a book publishing company, I'm not an author--yet--so I can't speak with too much authority except to say Pastor Gaines holds specific copyright to both "Morning Manna" and "When God Comes To Church." He does not hold specific copyright to the Bellevue services or meetings.

I don't think I was referencing something that just happens to be occurring within the confines of a church, actually. I was referencing something specifically produced by the church--services, meeting, productions, things of that sort. The church owns the copyright because the church authorizes the production of the event.

That's a pretty good "basis of fact," don't you think, Riddler? :)

--Mike

P.S.: Phew! I'm bushed! (Pun intended, by the way.)

solomon said...

junk,

I see where we're not on the same page. Your point is that Bellevue can't claim copyright, not that Mr. Haywood is wrong to copy and publish them.

If someone were to walk up and start filming one of my daughter's softball games, I wouldn't worry about whether or not it was legal. I'd be more worried about why he was filming it in the first place. JH has not shown any constructive purpose for putting anything on the internet. Only destructive. You can argue that some of the things he's torn down needed to be torn down, and I won't argue with that. But the fact remains, it is not constructive. That's why I'm opposed to it.

I think you would agree with me (correct me if I'm wrong) that a copyright does exist, and it is not Jim Haywood's. Whether or not it belongs to Bellevue, Brian Miller, Steve Gaines, or Barry McCarty, it is not his.

I don't see how he can claim the 'right' to publish it.

junk99mail said...

Mike,
Those are good points. The one thing I don't agree with is that with public church meetings "The church owns the copyright because the church authorizes the production of the event." If we were talking about the Passion Play, SCT, etc., that would be true, possibly even a sermon --depending on the prior agreement worked out between the pastor and BBC. (Did BBC own the copyright to Dr. Rogers sermons, or did LWF?)

But a public meeting is different because the participants are not all employees, and BBC, Inc. does not own, control, or determine the content of their speech. That's the difference.

I am not saying BBC cannot ever have copyright to anything that goes on inside the church; I am only saying they do not automatically have copyright to everything that transpires there, recorded or not. I believe that business meetings do not fall under BBC's copyright protection.

BTW, being "bushed" is far better than being a Democrat!

junk99mail said...

solomon,
I agree. If BBC doesn't own the copyright, that doesn't mean no one does, and it doesn't mean that anyone else who makes a recording of the meeting automatically does, either. And even if no one actually did have the copyright (that is, even if it was in the public domain, legally speaking), that does not make publishing it the right thing to do.

If someone thinks it isn't a good thing to publish a video of the BBC meeting, I think that energy would be better spent demonstrating why it is a bad idea, rather than attempting to say it is legally wrong by virtue of copyright.

Mike Bratton said...

junk99mail said...
Mike,
Those are good points.


Why, thank you.

The one thing I don't agree with is that with public church meetings "The church owns the copyright because the church authorizes the production of the event." If we were talking about the Passion Play, SCT, etc., that would be true, possibly even a sermon --depending on the prior agreement worked out between the pastor and BBC. (Did BBC own the copyright to Dr. Rogers sermons, or did LWF?)

Both Bellevue and Love Worth Finding have copyright to Pastor Rogers' messages.

But a public meeting is different because the participants are not all employees, and BBC, Inc. does not own, control, or determine the content of their speech. That's the difference.

A few things:

1) The business meeting was not "public." It was held in a private location, facilitated by a private group, for purposes that did not concern the public at large.

2) The participants were not all employees, yes. They were (supposed to be, at least) all members of the private group--the congregation of Bellevue. Or, in the case of Dr. McCarty, invited participants. The public at large was not invited, or able, to participate.

3) Whether or not Bellevue would "own, control, or determine the content of their speech" is not germane. Bellevue faciliated the meeting; Bellevue has the copyright.

I am not saying BBC cannot ever have copyright to anything that goes on inside the church; I am only saying they do not automatically have copyright to everything that transpires there, recorded or not.

No one has suggested that, from what we've seen.

I believe that business meetings do not fall under BBC's copyright protection.

I'm thinking that I've demonstrated why that is not the case. Were business meeting to not fall under copyright, then worship services would not, either.

BTW, being "bushed" is far better than being a Democrat!

Um, I was referring to working on all the bushes around my new house--but from a political standpoint, yes, you're right! :)

Now, more iced tea...

--Mike

junk99mail said...

Mike,
I was with you on points 1 & 2 (although by "public" I meant open to the public, as in visitors were told they could stay but not vote). But then there's point 3, which in essense just reaserts the original contention that BBC has the copyright because BBC facilitated the meeting. It has been my contention all along that hosting or facilitating or organizing or recording the meeting does not equate to copyright. Copyright inheres in the creation of an original work. BBC, Inc., did not do that; the meeting participants did--the original work being the words they spoke to make their motions or points.

Are we just going round in circles?

junk99mail said...

Mike,
You also said, "Were business meeting to not fall under copyright, then worship services would not, either."

They don't, necessarily. The copyright to the songs belongs to the songwtiters, not the BBC choir or congregation or BBC Inc. The copyright to the sermon belongs either to BBC, Inc. or to the preacher, depending on their prior legal arrangement. The copyright to the printed bulletin belongs to BBC, Inc. The actual tape of the services made by people employed by BBC, or any still photos taken in the service by BBC employees, is the copyrighted material of BBC -- except for anything with prior copyright (such as the songs).

But concerning the event (meeting or worship service) itself, and anything spoken or performed during the event that is not done by an employee under a work for hire agreement -- BBC does not own a copyright to that. So, legally, others can tape or photo it -- and if they then publish it, if any copyright is infringed it is that of the specific copyright owners -- the songwriters, the owner of the sermon, the member who got up and spoke at a microphone, etc.

Mike Bratton said...

junk99mail said...
Mike,
You also said, "Were business meeting to not fall under copyright, then worship services would not, either."

They don't, necessarily.


I guess I can say it again--yes, they do. Necessarily.

The copyright to the songs belongs to the songwtiters, not the BBC choir or congregation or BBC Inc.

Quite right. However, the copyright to the performance of the songs (which those who hold copyright allow to be performed) belongs to the church.

The copyright to the sermon belongs either to BBC, Inc. or to the preacher, depending on their prior legal arrangement. The copyright to the printed bulletin belongs to BBC, Inc. The actual tape of the services made by people employed by BBC, or any still photos taken in the service by BBC employees, is the copyrighted material of BBC -- except for anything with prior copyright (such as the songs).

Addressed above.

But concerning the event (meeting or worship service) itself, and anything spoken or performed during the event that is not done by an employee under a work for hire agreement -- BBC does not own a copyright to that.

Here is where the phrase "too fine a point" comes into play. Would someone be able to show up at any other type of non-profit business, videotape certain of the group's communal activities (but not others), and broadcast them to the rest of the world? Obviously, no.

Your suggestion that "anything spoken or performed during the event that is not done by an employee under a work for hire agreement" is fair game just doesn't work. A church owns the copyright to its formal activities, whether they are church services, musical productions, or business meetings. Not to be self-promoting, but merely to use an example close at hand, do you think that any of my performances over the years at Bellevue fail to fall under the church's copyright? Remember, I'm not an employee of the church, nor do I have a work-for-hire agreement.

Ever read the back of your ticket at a sporting event? I know--only a geek like me would read the fine print on the back of a ticket. The next time you get one, though, take a gander at the fine print. It will no doubt have a few interesting things--I summarize from the back of my recent Marlins/Braves ticket thusly, and like so:

1) You can't record or retransmit a single thing. You can't even legally call your buddy up and give him a play-by-play.

2) The home team owns the copyright to everything having to do with the game.

3) The home team even has the right to use your name and your likeness in photographs or in the broadcast of the game.

If you're part of the festivities, you fall under their copyright. It's the same scenario that applies to whole-church meetings--regardless of type.

So, legally, others can tape or photo it -- and if they then publish it, if any copyright is infringed it is that of the specific copyright owners -- the songwriters, the owner of the sermon, the member who got up and spoke at a microphone, etc.

Incorrect, as noted above. But thanks for the pleasant conversation.

--Mike

junk99mail said...

Mike Bratton said...
However, the copyright to the performance of the songs (which those who hold copyright allow to be performed) belongs to the church.

Ummm...copyright of a performance? A performance of someone else's material isn't an original work, by definition. And, again, you are stating as fact the main point of contention without supporting argument. Reminds me of the old Monty Python skit, "This isn't an argument!" "Yes it is!"

Here is where the phrase "too fine a point" comes into play. Would someone be able to show up at any other type of non-profit business, videotape certain of the group's communal activities (but not others), and broadcast them to the rest of the world? Obviously, no.

I have not stated that anyone has the right to broadcast a recording of someone eles's copyrighted material. My point is who owns the copyright. I still contend it is not an organization responsible for an event, but the person or organization responsible for the creation of the content.

Not to be self-promoting, but merely to use an example close at hand, do you think that any of my performances over the years at Bellevue fail to fall under the church's copyright? Remember, I'm not an employee of the church, nor do I have a work-for-hire agreement.

Addressed above.

Ever read the back of your ticket at a sporting event?

Surely you know that folks can, and do, claim all sorts of things that aren't necessarily so! Ever drive down an highway and get behind a dump truck spewing sand and gravel? You'll often see a little sign on the back of them saying "Not responsble for broken windshields." Putting the sign on the truck doesn't change their legal liability -- they are actually responsible if something flies off their truck and breaks your windshield. Putting up the sign just serves as a deterrent from folks calling them up and demanding that they meet their legal responsibility.

If you're part of the festivities, you fall under their copyright. It's the same scenario that applies to whole-church meetings--regardless of type.

Even if everything on the back of the Marlins/Braves ticket is legally accurate, the scenario is not the same. The actual event, the ballgame, is a work for hire, and thus copyrighted. The spectators are not performing or generating an original work and thus they do not own a copyright to their mere presense at the event--their image in routine activities not involving an original work is in the public domain. This is an entirely different scenario than an event in which individuals are invited to speak, which is a generation of an original work not under a work for hire and not in the public domain.

It all comes down to the creation of an original work. Perhaps BBC Inc. could argue that their physical video of the meetings is their own copyrighted material, meaning that no one could copy or distribute it without permission. But that isn't what happened in this case. A separate video was made of the procedings, and BBC Inc would not hold the copyright to that separate video.

Are we having fun yet??

Mike Bratton said...

junk99mail said...

Ummm...copyright of a performance? A performance of someone else's material isn't an original work, by definition. And, again, you are stating as fact the main point of contention without supporting argument. Reminds me of the old Monty Python skit, "This isn't an argument!" "Yes it is!"


Once copyright has been obtained, the performance of a copyrighted work can itself be copyrighted. And once again, this isn't a point that is eligible for contention--it's rather like insisting that the definition of a circle can be contested. Which, of course, could lead to circular reasoning... :)

I have not stated that anyone has the right to broadcast a recording of someone eles's copyrighted material. My point is who owns the copyright. I still contend it is not an organization responsible for an event, but the person or organization responsible for the creation of the content.

You advance your contention as settled fact. It is not. In actuality, the opposite is true, as has already been demonstrated.

Not to be self-promoting, but merely to use an example close at hand, do you think that any of my performances over the years at Bellevue fail to fall under the church's copyright? Remember, I'm not an employee of the church, nor do I have a work-for-hire agreement.

Addressed above.

Ever read the back of your ticket at a sporting event?

Surely you know that folks can, and do, claim all sorts of things that aren't necessarily so! Ever drive down an highway and get behind a dump truck spewing sand and gravel? You'll often see a little sign on the back of them saying "Not responsble for broken windshields." Putting the sign on the truck doesn't change their legal liability -- they are actually responsible if something flies off their truck and breaks your windshield. Putting up the sign just serves as a deterrent from folks calling them up and demanding that they meet their legal responsibility.


I notice you didn't directly answer anything you quoted there, so I'll ask the questions again.

Do I, as someone who is not a church employee, have copyright over the performances I've given at Bellevue over the years?

Do hosting ball clubs have copyright over the happenings surrounding a ball game?

Even if everything on the back of the Marlins/Braves ticket is legally accurate, the scenario is not the same. The actual event, the ballgame, is a work for hire, and thus copyrighted.

So, you assert that people who attend baseball games are employees of the home team? Players, perhaps?

The spectators are not performing or generating an original work and thus they do not own a copyright to their mere presense at the event--their image in routine activities not involving an original work is in the public domain. This is an entirely different scenario than an event in which individuals are invited to speak, which is a generation of an original work not under a work for hire and not in the public domain.

People who attend business meetings volunteer to speak, just as people who attend ball games volunteer to support a team.

It all comes down to the creation of an original work. Perhaps BBC Inc. could argue that their physical video of the meetings is their own copyrighted material, meaning that no one could copy or distribute it without permission. But that isn't what happened in this case. A separate video was made of the procedings, and BBC Inc would not hold the copyright to that separate video.

The church (and I really, really would like you to dispense with the pejorative "BBC Inc.," please) owns the copyright to what occurred. You have demonstrated that you have a differing opinion, but you have no grounds upon which to base it--other than that you don't think they should. From what I gather, neither the church nor YouTube shares your opinion.

Are we having fun yet??

Always!

--Mike

maybejustmaybe said...

In 1991, Whitney Houston performed our beloved national anthem at the Super Bowl -- perhaps one of the most stunning performances of the "Star Spangled Banner" any of us have ever heard or will hear in our lifetime. Last time I checked, the national anthem, penned by Francis Scott Key as the rockets' red glare exploded in the sky and he watched from Fort Henry near Baltimore in 1814, was in the public domain. Yet, Ms. Houston's performance of it was marketed as a charity effort with the proceeds designated to aid the families of Gulf War soldiers. I still have a copy of it on (gasp!) cassette.

So ... the public "holds" the copyright to the song, and Ms. Houston's performance of the song was actually copyrighted by her and the proceeds directed per her wishes.

Is this an apt example of what you two riddlers are talking about? It's made me dizzy and I think I'll sit down ... although I'm not sure it is appropriate to do so when writing about the national anthem, is it?

Miriam

Mike Bratton said...

maybejustmaybe said...

...

Is this an apt example of what you two riddlers are talking about? It's made me dizzy and I think I'll sit down ... although I'm not sure it is appropriate to do so when writing about the national anthem, is it?

Miriam


Ding ding ding!

We have a winner!

--Mike

junk99mail said...

Mike Bratton said...

Once copyright has been obtained,

One doesn't have to take any legal steps to obtain copyright. Copyright inheres in a work's creation. I own the copyright to what I am writing to you at this moment by virtue of the fact that I wrote it. Further, you don't own copyright to the words I write just because I do so on your blog. Location does not determine copyright. Creation does.

the performance of a copyrighted work can itself be copyrighted.

Is a performance of another's work subject to copyright? To be honest, I am not certain on that one. It always comes back to the nature of copyright as requiring the creation of original work. Is a performance of another's material also the creation of an original work? I don't know. But to me that isn't germane to the discussion at hand of who owns the copyright to the original work.

And once again, this isn't a point that is eligible for contention--

Why isn't it eligible for contention? Because you say it is established fact? You have asserted it but have not established it either by reason or legal citation or precedent.

--it's rather like insisting that the definition of a circle can be contested. Which, of course, could lead to circular reasoning... :)

Which, of course, is exactly what you've been doing! Ha! :)

You advance your contention as settled fact. It is not. In actuality, the opposite is true, as has already been demonstrated.

Funny...this is exactly what I've been saying you are doing. You state that BBC has copyright where I see no demonstration of it in fact.

I notice you didn't directly answer anything you quoted there, so I'll ask the questions again.

Do I, as someone who is not a church employee, have copyright over the performances I've given at Bellevue over the years?


Covered just above. Answer: I don't know; but it isn't relevant. If the answer is yes, that only supports my contention that the speakers at the meeting have copyright to what they spoke. If the answer is no, it only means that a performer of someone else's work does not have copyright--it does not negate the copyright of an original work, which is what the words of the meeting's speakers are. Apples and oranges.

Do hosting ball clubs have copyright over the happenings surrounding a ball game?

They own the copyright to the film of the event, but not necessarily to every aspect of the event. If they play the song "Play that Funky Music White Boy" over the PA system, do they own the copyright to it? No. If they show a clip from "The Godfather" on the video screen, do they own that copyright? No. If I am sitting in the stands picking my nose and they catch it on film, do they own the copyright to me ever picking my nose again? No. If the players make an amazing "Tinkers to Evers to Chance" triple play, and then those players all get transferred to a new ball club, does the hosting ball club own the copyright to that play, so the players can never do it again? No. What they own copyright to is their own video of the event.

They can set a rule that no one else can tape the event. They can throw you out for violating the rule. But is the fact that you taped it a violation of copyright? No.

In the case of the BBC meeting, I do not believe that those generating the original work during a meeting (the speakers) surrender copyright to their words just because they spoke them within the walls of BBC or at an event organized by BBC. Would a singer (non-BBC employee) who got up and composed and performed a song on the spot during a worship service be surrendering copyright to the church? Don't bother saying yes, because that would be an incorrect answer.

Even if everything on the back of the Marlins/Braves ticket is legally accurate, the scenario is not the same. The actual event, the ballgame, is a work for hire, and thus copyrighted.

So, you assert that people who attend baseball games are employees of the home team? Players, perhaps?


No. I went on to state that spectators are not generating original work by their mere presence.

People who attend business meetings volunteer to speak, just as people who attend ball games volunteer to support a team.

Yes, but the former involves creation of original work; the latter does not.

The church (and I really, really would like you to dispense with the pejorative "BBC Inc.," please)

Will do. Sorry for any offense. I really didn't mean it as a pejorative. My meaning is to distinguish between the "the legal entity that is BBC" and BBC as the collective membership of the church. The former acts on behalf of the latter concerning any legal actions or claims.

owns the copyright to what occurred. You have demonstrated that you have a differing opinion, but you have no grounds upon which to base it--other than that you don't think they should.

The grounds I have repeatedly appealed to is the creation of original work. It is not a matter of whether I think they should have copyright or not, it is a matter of whether or not they actually do. From where I'm sitting, your opinion is the one without grounds.

From what I gather, neither the church nor YouTube shares your opinion.

Anyone needs only to claim copyright for YouTube to pull a video. YouYube does not investigate legal claims; they yank anything that is contested, and it is then up to the one who posted it to demonstrate that the one who complained does not have legal copyright. Take a look at their FAQ. This is YouTube's policy to prevent themselves from being sued.

Are we having fun yet??

Always!


That's good to know!

junk99mail said...

maybejustmaybe said:
So ... the public "holds" the copyright to the song, and Ms. Houston's performance of the song was actually copyrighted by her and the proceeds directed per her wishes.

Public domain means that there is no copyright, not that the public holds it. But I guess the end result is the same ... no one person or group can lay exclusive legal claim to it.

As I said in my post above, I am not sure if a performance of a work is itself copyrighted. I believe that in this case what was copyrighted was the recording of the performance. The recording, being commissioned by Ms. Houston (or perhaps her record label), was the original work, and she owns the copyright (or perhaps her record label does, or both) because those who recorded it made a work for hire.

Speaking of recordings, I feel like a broken record ... copyright ... original work ... copyright ... original work ... copyright ...

Come on, say it with me, everybody!!

maybejustmaybe said...

However, gentlemen, just to keep on makin' life interesting ...

Wouldn't you just bet that if someone who was in attendance at the SuperBowl in 1991 -- say, for example, a ticketholder or (purely for the sake of argument and conjecture) a member of the sound crew -- had made a clandestine recording of their own of Ms. Houston's thrilling performance, then tried to market it on their own, they would have been, ahem, visited by lawyers on behalf of Ms. Houston. The argument would not have been over protection of their own recording ... the dispute would have been all about who "owned" Ms. Houston's performance.

Don't you just imagine?

Spencersb said...

Forgive the clumsy quote, I'm new at this:

Junk said " If they play the song "Play that Funky Music White Boy" over the PA system, do they own the copyright to it? No."

No they do not own the copyright, but they do pay a royalty for doing so, probably through a syndication service for all of their in-game music. I used to have a client who owned the copyright to the old song "White Silver Sands." She got something like a nickel everytime it was played anywhere in the world. I recall it was very popular in South America. :^)

I've been following along, as best I can anyway, and I think part of the contention is not that everything on the video in question was copyrighted, but that, at times, the video camera was pointed at the IMAG screens, which were showing the video feed from the Bellevue-owned-and-operated cameras, and therefore are considered an original creation of Bellevue.

As an OT aside for Mike, as someone who has also been recently accused of forming a clique (or as my detractors said, a "click"), do what I did: pass out little smiley faces that make a clicking sound! I'd post a picture, but I don't know how to do that either. Just remember, the challenge (click) is to be answered (click click). ;^)

bepatient said...

junkmail said:


"They own the copyright to the film of the event

This is exactly what I am saying... Had they filmed the actual event I might be willing to give them some leeway in this arguement, but there is no doubt in my mind that BBC owned the film that showed on the IMAG. To me that is the same as recording a movie in the movie theater with your camera and posting it on the internet.

BBC created that video (complete with photo images in between the action that I know they hold the copyright to)so therefore I don't see the difference.

Mike Bratton said...

Oh, look!

Some of my clique!

Let's see... Will we be compared to Hitler and his inner circle, the Clinton White House, or the Apple Dumpling Gang? :)

--Mike

P.S.: If I may make a suggestion, I'm hoping for the SuperFriends. Dibs on being Green Lantern.

solomon said...

Dibs on being Green Lantern.

It's been a while, but wasn't GL powerless against things that were yellow?

Probably not the best choice in our dispute, Mike.

bepatient said...

I claim Wonder Woman!!!

Lasso of Truth! Oh My!

SpringerSpaniel said...

Hmm... I always though that Mark D. was above reproach. Guess I was wrong... at least according to the hate filled diatribes being posted over at the closed forum.

I really did try to be nice over there... it simply isn't possible given the amount of vitriol and pure, unadulterated hatred that passes for comment over there. And they have the audicity to call THEMselves the ... well, for lack of a better term... Authority on all things Christlike? Laughable.

Mike Bratton said...

solomon said...

It's been a while, but wasn't GL powerless against things that were yellow?

Probably not the best choice in our dispute, Mike.


Ah, in the comic books they've addressed that little quirk. It's not the color yellow per se, but fear itself that renders a power ring powerless. Face your fear, and the ring has no weakness.

Feel free to draw your own analogy from that, folks. :)

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

SpringerSpaniel said...
Hmm... I always though that Mark D. was above reproach. Guess I was wrong... at least according to the hate filled diatribes being posted over at the closed forum.


Springer (may I call you "Jerry"?), Mark Dougharty is a fine Christian man. In talking wtih him, he has been quick to respond to the many and varied attack made upon him with compassion and humility.

I really did try to be nice over there... it simply isn't possible given the amount of vitriol and pure, unadulterated hatred that passes for comment over there. And they have the audicity to call THEMselves the ... well, for lack of a better term... Authority on all things Christlike? Laughable.

Oh, I think it's possible for those who aren't Closed Forum "regulars" to be nice over there. In my own time there, I never spoke to them in anger, compared anyone to Hitler, or made myself out to be an arbiter regarding who's a Christian and who isn't. However, it's obvious from the evidence that good behavior, apart from lockstep agreement with Closed Form dogma, is simply not appreciated.

--Mike

Karen said...

Hey Mike,

Can I be Gleek?

I had the funniest thought when I posted about Dr. Rogers getting attacked when I was about 9 or 10 yrs. old. I thought "I'll ask Mike if he was running the camera that day". DUH! You're not that much older than me! :)

Thanks why I want to be Gleek!

karen

junk99mail said...

spencersb said...
I've been following along, as best I can anyway, and I think part of the contention is not that everything on the video in question was copyrighted, but that, at times, the video camera was pointed at the IMAG screens, which were showing the video feed from the Bellevue-owned-and-operated cameras, and therefore are considered an original creation of Bellevue.

Now that is a good point that I can accept as a reasonable counter argument. All the talk of who owns a copyright to a performance of someone else's copyrighted or non-copyrighted is interesting, but not especially relevant to the main point of who owns the copyright to what transpires in a business meeting.

Although I do not know for certain if a videotape of an event is itself subject to copyright, I can concede that it is at least possible. Whether or not the video feed to an IMAG rises to that same standard (being more transitory in nature than the tape of the images) is also questionable, but I can also concede that may be possible as well.

What I do not concede is that the event itself is copyrighted by BBC and cannot legally be taped by another individual (assuming they are taping the action directly and not via the IMAG screen). Many cameras are present at a White House press conference (an event not open to the general public), and while perhaps each network can claim copyright to their own tape of the event, but no single network (nor even the WHite House, which likely has security cameras taping the event, if no others) can claim exclusive copyright to the event so as to prevent any other tape made from being shown.

Does BBC have a right to make a rule that no videos are allowed without permission? Yes. Is it wrong for someone to violate that rule? Not from a legal copyright standpoint, but it is certainly ethically questionable for a church member not to abide by the rules of those responsible for the church.

junk99mail said...

I AM The Flash!

BBC Refugee said...

Mike,

I had sent a post last week with a question for you. I am not sure if it got lost in cyberspace or if I was edited out. If you do not wish to publish my question or answer, I would still like you to at least email an answer.

Do you believe Jim Angel was led by the Holy Spirit when he made a motion to stop the businees meeting?

Do you beleive he made a motion to stop the meeting because of the children and workers?

Do you believe he made a motion to stop the meeting because he was asked to?

Thank you Mike.

Spencersb said...

Junk99mail said

What I do not concede is that the event itself is copyrighted by BBC and cannot legally be taped by another individual (assuming they are taping the action directly and not via the IMAG screen). Many cameras are present at a White House press conference (an event not open to the general public), and while perhaps each network can claim copyright to their own tape of the event, but no single network (nor even the WHite House, which likely has security cameras taping the event, if no others) can claim exclusive copyright to the event so as to prevent any other tape made from being shown.

First, let me recite a phrase I have thoroughly memorized, as I repeat it at least once a week for my job: "I am not an attorney and am not qualified to provide legal advice. I encourage you to consult your own outside counsel."

But I may have hit upon the point where we differ: I'm not sure a chuch business meeting can be considered a "public" meeting. It is conducted by a private entity for a private purpose. Visitors are allowed access at the discretion of the organization. They could make it a closed meeting if they chose to, though that might give the wrong impression in the current environment.

I'm not sure the WH press conference illustration works, since it is done for the express purpose of giving access to the news media. Would a private citizen without press credentials be allowed to record the pc and re-distribute said recording?

I think Mike's example of the Singing Christmas Tree/Passion Play is a good example, however. Both are performances of otherwise copyrighted material (unless Bellevue uses all-original material, I don't know), used by permission. The specific performance, however, is a Bellevue production to which Bellevue owns the rights.

I will concede that by that same argument, JH may have reason to assert that his tape is copyrightable, though I doubt he could say "used by permission," no matter who owns the original copyright, and Bellevue can at least make the argument that they do. Would it hold up if challenged? Who knows. Even if we could find clear laws, judges often rule based on what they think is fair, rather than simply applying the law.

BTW, should my clique membership be approved, I'd like dibs on "Hawkman." If I comb my hair right, the resemblence is striking.

Mike Bratton said...

Karen said...
Hey Mike,

Can I be Gleek?

I had the funniest thought when I posted about Dr. Rogers getting attacked when I was about 9 or 10 yrs. old. I thought "I'll ask Mike if he was running the camera that day". DUH! You're not that much older than me! :)

Thanks why I want to be Gleek!

karen


Look! Liver spots are bursting out on my hands!

If you're referring to the day when a man was walking down the stage-left aisle, then broke into a sprint, then got tackled by a choir member--yes, I was running one of the balcony cameras that day!

You may be Gleek, but you'll have to recruit a pair of Wonder Twins on your own...

And Junk, you said (quoting you thusly, and like so) "Does BBC have a right to make a rule that no videos are allowed without permission? Yes. Is it wrong for someone to violate that rule? Not from a legal copyright standpoint, but it is certainly ethically questionable for a church member not to abide by the rules of those responsible for the church."

How about we agree to rendezvous there?

And for BBC Refugee: No, I have not received an e-mail from you with those questions, so thank you for reposting them here. I don't edit comments unless they're obscene; holders of any and every viewpoint on a given issue are welcome to discuss matters here.

BBC Refugee said...
Mike,

I had sent a post last week with a question for you. I am not sure if it got lost in cyberspace or if I was edited out. If you do not wish to publish my question or answer, I would still like you to at least email an answer.

Do you believe Jim Angel was led by the Holy Spirit when he made a motion to stop the businees meeting?


I have no idea. Just as I would never seriously speculate on the many contrarian "checks in the spirit," I would never speculate on whether God motivated Brother Jim to make a motion to adjourn. Since, to my knowledge, he has not said one way or the other, any hypothesizing is ultimately fruitless.

Do you beleive he made a motion to stop the meeting because of the children and workers?

That's what he said, if memory serves. I also understand he was hungry.

Do you believe he made a motion to stop the meeting because he was asked to?

He may have been given the "bunt sign" from the home-team dugout. I haven't heard that confirmed, but getting a signal would not preclude concern for children and the children's workers.

As I've said previously, if Brother Jim did get a "bunt sign," it was a marvelous idea, because the business meeting had stopped being about business and, thanks to the leaden footwork of some notable contrarians, was quickly on the verge of becoming about presumed political cleverness.

Seriously, it is not impossible to think that God the Holy Spirit guided the planning and transmission of a "bunt sign" to a man who was concerned about children's workers--and that God caused him to feel hungry, too.

Thank you Mike.

You're quite welcome. Thanks for stopping by, and feel free to visit again.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

BTW, should my clique membership be approved, I'd like dibs on "Hawkman." If I comb my hair right, the resemblence is striking.

As long as you can recruit your own Hawkgirl, you're golden.

You'll have to shave, though; there's no facial hair on the Thanagarians. At least I have the luxury of citing one Green Lantern who has a goatee almost as impressive as mine... :)

--Mike

maybejustmaybe said...

Just curious ... but Spandex is not mandatory for this clique, is it?

bepatient said...

MJM,

They have special "superhero" spandex so we can look like that when we put it on!

I will be wearing it under all my clothes once I get mine!

bepatient said...

I try to steer clear of the Closed forum but occasionally I pop in to see what is going on and I skimmed through and saw a comment that SG is the "head demon".

Where are all the discerning Christians who pick apart every word and gesture by SG and friends but don't say a word about this type of comment! How is this even remotely appropriate?

LegalBeagle said...

Interesting...

The "closed forum" folks are making jokes about M.D.'s height and that is apparently acceptable.

They are also flat out calling Pastor Gaines a demon, which is stunningly also apparently acceptable.

lovecakes said...

Who'd be so crude as to compare you guys to Hitler? The Apple Dumpling Gang, however--I concur.

lovecakes said...

Oh my,apparently, they are dancing barefoot over at the closed forum, atop that smiling music-dude's hairpiece; not only that, they baked fish without ventilating the kitchen; and it is rumored they are behind the missing honeybees.

solomon said...

Whatever the NBBCOF does or says, we can't ever lose sight that many of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ and need our prayers. The way they act sometimes just shows where they are spiritually. (I certainly wasn't born full grown.)

I'd advise everyone to take some time away from it if you're not. The exposure to so much anger and resentment could lead you into sin. I fell into that snare, and I don't want anyone else to get caught.

BTW, does it seem strange to anyone else that the PD conspirators aren't around to stir the pot on days like today when it's already boiling?

solomon said...

The apostle John said...
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

An angry NBBCOFer said...
I am glad I saw the light early and separated myself from it.

How's that for an ironic slip of the 'tongue'?

junk99mail said...

Mike said...
How about we agree to rendezvous there?

Sounds like a plan! Thanks for an interesting, civil, and thought provoking discussion. I guess we just proved it can be done!

Your friend and mine,
"junk" (aka The Flash) :)

SpringerSpaniel said...

LegalBeagle said...

Interesting...

The "closed forum" folks are making jokes about M.D.'s height and that is apparently acceptable.

They are also flat out calling Pastor Gaines a demon, which is stunningly also apparently acceptable.


I noticed that very thing... and actually typed out a rather long, rather scathing reply, full of flowy big words and accusations.

And when I failed to enter the word verification correctly, I re-read.. and thought to myself... This makes me sound just like them. So I deleted it. I won't say that it didn't feel good to type it out, though!!!

Oh... and apparently it is now OK to verbally accost Steve and Donna Gaines while they are out to dinner!!! The madness reaches a new level.

bepatient said...

I also found it intriguing how they compared that encounter with the times they had seen Dr. Rogers out-

Do they really not see that they way in which you approach someone matters?

Dr. Rogers still may have responded differently in the same situation, but those stories are apples and oranges.

Karen said...

bepatient,

It's not really apples and oranges, is it? The person that approached Steve Gaines on Sunday night at Sweet Peppers did so out of concern for a 15 yr old girl. The person didn't come to Steve in a confrontational way - just a member bringing a concern to her pastor. And I posted about the way that Dr. Rogers was always so approachable with the membership - I think Steve Gaines is lacking in that area. To me, that doesn't demonize him, but it shows lack of compassion. This is, of course, just my opinion, so don't beat me up too bad, but I know you won't because we can agree to disagree.

Mike,

I wrote that little blurb about "voodoo". I am sorry that it's come to that for me, but I'm out of descriptive words on how I feel people have been changed since Steve Gaines came to Bellevue. In my question yesterday about whether Steve had used some sort of voodoo or had these people just been this way and when Steve came, the attitudes with which people have been villified have just now come out? I never got a definitive answer to that one. I just feel like some people have been visited by aliens or been body snatched or gone through a stepford process because I don't recognize specific choir members, deacons or ushers anymore. People I've loved for years have turned vicious due their views on the issues plaguing BBC (on both sides, admittedly) and I don't know if it's because of Steve or in spite of Steve.

karen

bugsii said...

From NBBCOF - This forum was created to provide a place where those who are seriously concerned about the issues facing Bellevue Baptist Church can come to comment and exchange ideas in a respectful, Christian spirit.

I have to assume by their discussions that they are either "seriously concerned about" Jamie Parker's smile and Mark Dougharty's height, OR NOT "exchanging ideas in a respectful, Christian spirit".

One of the quotes about JP's teeth was that you shouldn't trust someone that smiles too much. I refuse to go and see what they've written about MD's height. However, I have this to say to them about MD....Mt 6:27 "Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?". If Mark doesn't worry about it, neither should they!!

Spencersb said...

Mike Bratton Said...

You'll have to shave, though; there's no facial hair on the Thanagarians.

I'm adopted. (I really am actually) Besides I seem to recall being told I'd still be swarthy, even if I shaved.

Could someone point me to (or post) the Reader's Digest version of the encounter at Sweet Peppers? I must have missed something. Maybe I just didn;t wade through enough...um, stuff.

bepatient said...

Karen,

From the original story that was posted, it did not appear he was approached in a non-confrontational way. The reaction portrayed in that story goes against EVERY other story I have heard of him being approached in public by people.

And after reading Brandon's story about G. Hauss on there I am leery of the way any story is presented by the NBBCOF bloggers. I heard the story from him when the first incident happened and then again a few minutes after he talked to him on the phone.
Although technically factual, it is easy to skew the facts to cater to the audience you are speaking to. Brandon did not lie to anyone, but the stories came out in two very different ways even when told by the same person.

Mike Bratton said...

Karen said...
bepatient,

It's not really apples and oranges, is it? The person that approached Steve Gaines on Sunday night at Sweet Peppers did so out of concern for a 15 yr old girl. The person didn't come to Steve in a confrontational way - just a member bringing a concern to her pastor.


Karen, wouldn't you agree that unless you're that person, you really can't say for sure what that person's motive was?

And I posted about the way that Dr. Rogers was always so approachable with the membership - I think Steve Gaines is lacking in that area.

I have never known Pastor Gaines not to be approachable; the first in-depth conversation we ever had was after my son practically tackled him. Though I knew Pastor Rogers longer, and thus better, than I know Pastor Gaines at this point in life, I cannot say that I've seen much difference in their levels of congeniality.

To me, that doesn't demonize him, but it shows lack of compassion. This is, of course, just my opinion, so don't beat me up too bad, but I know you won't because we can agree to disagree.

Does it benefit a pastor to try and hang a sign around his neck that reads "Lack Of Compassion"?

Think about it.

Mike,

I wrote that little blurb about "voodoo".


I know you did. Which was why I didn't ascribe authorship to any of the quotes.

I am sorry that it's come to that for me, but I'm out of descriptive words on how I feel people have been changed since Steve Gaines came to Bellevue. In my question yesterday about whether Steve had used some sort of voodoo or had these people just been this way and when Steve came, the attitudes with which people have been villified have just now come out? I never got a definitive answer to that one. I just feel like some people have been visited by aliens or been body snatched or gone through a stepford process because I don't recognize specific choir members, deacons or ushers anymore. People I've loved for years have turned vicious due their views on the issues plaguing BBC (on both sides, admittedly) and I don't know if it's because of Steve or in spite of Steve.

I can give you an answer if you'd like one, and Pastor Gaines is only a circumstantial part of that answer. Ready?

As Pastor Rogers so often said, we find out what's inside ourselves, and inside others, when jostled. There's been a lot of jostling going on at Bellevue over the past year or so--which is not always a bad thing. The jostling has revealed in some a mindset that leads to making death threats and blackmail threats, comparing people to Satan and the Antichrist, and engaging in other bilious commentary and behavior.

Please don't let what's in them jostle out onto you. It's corrosive.

--Mike

Karen said...

Mike,

From the emails I've received from the lady that approached the Gaines' at Sweet Peppers, I have to believe that she did so in the spirit of trying to help. She didn't wag a finger in his face or raise her voice to him. I just have to believe it when she says it and besides there were 2 other witnesses that watched.

As to whether it benefits a pastor to know he is perceived to be lacking in compassion, I guess if I had a piece of spinach in my teeth, I'd want someone to tell me. I know spinach in the teeth isn't a character flaw, but hopefully you get my point.

You know me well enough to know that I would rather die than critize, but oh my goodness, Mike, look at all the "mistakes of the heart" that have been made. It's not longer about the music and personal taste. Laws have been broken, members have been yelled at, villified, handcuffed, etc. What will Steve Gaines have to do before you see that he's taking Bellevue down quick, fast and in a hurry? People that I don't even know have written me from Gardendale, apologizing for "pawning him off" on BBC. Those are their emailed words, Mike. Not mine.

There has been bad behavior on all sides of these issues and I know I've offended some folks with my words so for that, I am sorry, but I will not shut up until God tells me to. I can't - Bellevue is too precious to let go yet.

karen

solomon said...

My oldest daughter just turned 15. She could tell you a few stories about the 'angel' that's at the heart of the latest controversy. I've taught her not to spread gossip, though.

Jesus ate with sinners because he knew their hearts, not because he liked what was on the menu.

Mike Bratton said...

Karen said...
Mike,

From the emails I've received from the lady that approached the Gaines' at Sweet Peppers, I have to believe that she did so in the spirit of trying to help.


If that's what you come away with--what you choose to believe--that's wonderful. But since we weren't there, we don't know.

There's a big difference.

She didn't wag a finger in his face

Remember, none of us were there.

or raise her voice to him.

Remember, none of us were there.

I just have to believe it when she says it and besides there were 2 other witnesses that watched.

You choose to believe it. You do not have to believe it.

As to whether it benefits a pastor to know he is perceived to be lacking in compassion, I guess if I had a piece of spinach in my teeth, I'd want someone to tell me. I know spinach in the teeth isn't a character flaw, but hopefully you get my point.

Would you prefer someone to whisper "Um, hey, you might want to look in the mirror and check your teeth," or read the website article with the title with a large red font, "Karen Willingly Invites Gingivitis! Leads Others Down Road To Periodontal Disease!"

There's a difference in the two approaches.

You know me well enough to know that I would rather die than critize, but oh my goodness, Mike, look at all the "mistakes of the heart" that have been made. It's not longer about the music and personal taste. Laws have been broken,

Which ones? And have the authorities been called yet?

members have been yelled at, villified, handcuffed, etc.

Members--plural--are being handcuffed? Things have changed since I moved, I guess!

And as for vilification, the most active offenders in that area circulate in places like the Closed Forum, "Saving Bellevue," IDC, ACT, and the like. Do you have any outrage for them, or have you allowed your focus to be steered away from the offenses committed in the very forum you frequent?

What will Steve Gaines have to do before you see that he's taking Bellevue down quick, fast and in a hurry?

Oh, I have a list--want to see some of what's on it? If he does any of the following...

1) Insists that he knows whether or not someone is a Christian (beyond that person's own statements)

2) Calls anyone a demon or Antichrist (who isn't, obviously, a demon or the Antichrist)

3) Makes death threats or otherwise engages in terroristic behavior

...then he'll obviously be doing things to try and "take Bellevue down."

Of course, there are people who unrepentently engage in such behavior right now. None of them are named Steve Gaines; most of them won't sign their names to their behavior.

People that I don't even know have written me from Gardendale, apologizing for "pawning him off" on BBC. Those are their emailed words, Mike. Not mine.

You know, I believe that may have been one of the reasons God led my family and me down here to the Birmingham area. I get to talk with people face-to-face about Pastor Gaines, with virtually all their comments being unsolicited ones--all I have to do is mention Bellevue. And I've never told them my opinion of Pastor Gaines one way or another.

Whether they're pastors or laity, their comments regarding Pastor Gaines are universally positive--the term "glowing" can even be used.

Have you stopped to consider you might be getting those e-mails because of the Forum you frequent and the position you voice?

There has been bad behavior on all sides of these issues and I know I've offended some folks with my words so for that, I am sorry, but I will not shut up until God tells me to. I can't - Bellevue is too precious to let go yet.

Unlike how your Forum friends view me, I wouldn't dream of asking you--or anyone else--to "shut up." I do, however, encourage you to consider how the online company you keep might be affecting your point of view.

--Mike

Karen said...

Mike,

I'm considering your last post to me and am mulling it over. I know that my position has not been affected by the blog - I came to the blog because of my point of view.

Also, I sent you a "Captain America" video. Hope you like it.

karen

Mike Bratton said...

Karen said...
Mike,

I'm considering your last post to me and am mulling it over. I know that my position has not been affected by the blog - I came to the blog because of my point of view.


Mulling is always good.

Also, I sent you a "Captain America" video. Hope you like it.

Yes, thank you. That video proves it's important to be able to impersonate a superhero not just on the outside, but on the inside, too.

--Mike

Amy said...

Solomon said..

My oldest daughter just turned 15. She could tell you a few stories about the 'angel' that's at the heart of the latest controversy. I've taught her not to spread gossip, though.

Jesus ate with sinners because he knew their hearts, not because he liked what was on the menu.


Amy says- I'm missing your point. My point would be, the security guards didn't know this girl’s heart, and to escort her out of the sanctuary when she was quietly sitting, and not being disruptive, is wrong. Anyone seeking God should be welcome at BBC. If BBC is going to assign seats to only those they feel worthy, then they need to close up shop- because nobody deserves to be there.

solomon said...

Hi Amy.

My point is not that the girl should not be allowed in church at all.

It was that the NBBCOF almost unanimously takes the side of whoever is against Gaines. It could be anyone, just as long as it make SG look bad (as if he really needs help).

The pastor's head on a platter is what's on the menu, and it looks like a lot of people will partner with anyone to get it.

Amy said...

Sol-

Thanks for clarifying. I will even go so far as to say IMO that incident doesn't necessarily reflect Steve Gaines. He can’t be held responsible for whoever told security to kick this girl out, unless it was him.
I have a neighbor that has a son with Autism, who is now 15. She left BBC last year, not because of what’s been going on, but for distance/time issues as her kids got busier. Any way, when her little boy was five, she got a call from a staff member in the Children’s Department saying her son was no longer welcome at Sunday School, as he required to much attention. She was very hurt and they were going to leave. I told her, in my reasonable way, I would take it to the top and give the Leadership the benefit of the doubt. She called Dr. Rogers office and told the secretary what happened. Dr. Rogers called her back that afternoon and was appalled over the situation. By that point he had already gotten to the bottom of what happened, and had put together adult volunteers to shadow her little boy so he could be more a part of Sunday School. They received, and accepted, a heart felt apology from the person that called them.
I didn’t mean to type on and on, but what you said made me think of this situation. I don’t really know how the leadership responded in this girl’s situation, but I do think they are accountable for making sure amends are made to the girl, and her family, and for setting up some guidelines so this never happens again. Hopefully, that is how they proceeded.

solomon said...

amy,

That's a perfect example of how things have changed. Bellevue grew under Dr. Rogers, and he didn't have any reservations about making any decisions in any area of the church. He certainly relied on the wisdom of the staff, but he would handle anything that came to his attention personally.

Steve Gaines doesn't do that from what I've seen. He seems to want to be more of a quarterback than a coach.

Karen wasn't exaggerating when she wrote about the security guards behavior and attitudes. (not all, but some) Some of them have been around for a long time, but that doesn't excuse them from having courtesy. (again, let me say this does not apply to all of them)

Dr. Gaines didn't know about it any more than Dr. Rogers did, but he does now. I'll be watching carefully to see what changes are made.

I LOVE YOU said...

AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,聊天室,情色,a片,AV女優

文章 said...

AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,聊天室,情色,a片,AV女優