We have found a path to victory!
And we have taken the first step down that path.
But, first, let’s define our terms.
We define victory as “the ability to freely practice the religion of Scientology.” Since we must be able to use the materials developed by L. Ron Hubbard in order to practice the religion, the free practice of the religion means to do so without the threat of legal sanctions.
By “incidental” trademarks we mean those such as use of the word “Scientology” that are essential and integral components of the religion.
An Important Distinction
As we have repeatedly pointed out on this web site, and on its predecessor site, SaveScientology.com, there is a profound difference between the “church” of Scientology and the “religion” of Scientology. See, for example, our article An Important Distinction.
Preservation of the technology cannot occur without a central organization (or church) that will maintain a standard. Scientology central organizations are unique because of their inherent cross checks and balances, combining the delivery of the technology with ivory tower case supervision, examination of technical results and correction (if necessary) and internal ethics standards.
The reason the church has failed is because David Miscavige usurped all these administrative checks and balances (in addition to corporate checks and balances which could have prevented or remedied it).
As we have previously stated, the “church of Scientology” is really David Miscavige doing business as the church of Scientology. The technology, policies and practices of Miscavige are what have trashed the reputes of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
In order to handle this situation, Religious Liberty League embarked on a project to break the monopoly over the use of the copyrights and trademarks of the religion by the church so that the religion can be freely (and correctly) practiced by persons outside the church
In furtherance of this project, and toward that aim, we assisted in the establishment of the First Independent Church of Scientology (FICofS). We will continue to support and assist FICofS as long as it aligns with and remains aligned with the religion and aims of Scientology.
Breaking the Monopoly
Obviously, the religion of Scientology cannot be practiced at all without use of the materials developed by L. Ron Hubbard. Most of these materials – contrary to a false datum prevalent in the independent field – are protected by copyrights and trademarks owned by various legal entities known collectively and colloquially as the “Church of Scientology.”
Religious Liberty League engaged lawyers highly specialized in the fields of copyrights, trademarks, First Amendment law, and litigation. We instructed them to determine how we could break the church’s monopoly over the use of Scientology materials so that FICofS and all its eventual authorized churches, missions, field groups and field auditors can freely practice Scientology.
That endeavor is very costly and time-consuming. It consisted of research into every prior legal ruling in courts throughout the United States that involved breakaway churches or groups who were sued for copyright and trademark infringement over the use of materials owned by the mother church.
But it resulted in a path to victory!
We kept the results of this legal research confidential… until now!
FICofS Request For License To Use Scientology Materials
The plan we developed involves a two-step process.
Courts have upheld copyrights and trademarks of religious materials and marks against use by independent factions. A constitutional issue is created, however, when the copyright and trademark laws cause a substantial burden in the exercise of religion. This entails proving that (1) use of the questioned materials are essential to the practice of the religion and (2) a reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to use the materials.
Proof 1 can be established: FICofS is a nonprofit religious corporation with tax-exempt status.
Proof 2 was just set in motion. Lawyers on behalf of FICofS requested a license from the church to use all copyrighted materials and incidental trademarks needed to practice the religion of Scientology in letters sent to the respective corporate owners, Religious Technology Center (RTC, owner of trademarks) and Church of Spiritual Technology (CST, copyrights).
To view the letters, click here: Letter to RTC Letter to CST
We are not dependent upon the church granting the license. If it ignores the request or tells us to pound sand, we have our proof that a reasonable effort was made to obtain licenses. If it accedes to the request but makes an unreasonable demand for an exchange, we also have our proof.
Of course, in the off chance that it grants a license for agreeable terms, we will have achieved our aims.
The bottom line is that Religious Liberty League can create a safe space for the free practice of Scientology outside the church.
False Data Correction
Copyrights In The Public Domain
One is the idea that the church lost its copyrights. Perhaps it lost some to the public domain, certainly not all of them.
Copyright laws have changed over the years. Those created before 1978 were covered by the 1909 Act which required a registration that could be renewed for two consecutive 28-year terms. In 1992, Congress made renewal automatic for works published between 1964 and 1978. The 1978 Act also extended the period to 75 years, and it was later extended an additional 20 years.
Some materials not covered by federal law are covered by state law, such as California’s Civil Code Section 980, which, for example, extends common law copyright law to audio recordings. (The 1909 federal law did not cover lectures.)
The point being, LRH materials must be examined individually to determine whether they have copyright protection. Pre-1964 works may be in the public domain either because a copyright was not registered or, if it was registered, was not timely renewed. Works between 1964 and 1978 are also questionable, and materials after 1978 are very likely copyrighted.
Lack of Church Enforcement
Another significant false datum in the field is the idea that LRH materials are now part of the public domain because it has all been published on the Internet and/or has been used by persons in the field who were not sued for copyright infringement.
The church, as with any other copyright holder, may engage in selective enforcement. The fact that it has not sued someone or has not been able to shut down every unauthorized use on the Internet does not prevent it from bringing an infringement lawsuit against anyone who delivers Scientology services in the field. If it hasn’t gone after field practices it is probably because they are small fries and not a threat in the larger scheme.
The music industry has the same problem. It cannot go after every Tom, Dick and Harry who shares music files on the Internet, and failure to do so has not resulted in loss of copyrights. Notice that the industry sure went after Napster (a music sharing web site) with a vengeance.
A similar false datum is that persons who are currently practicing in the field for longer than three years are safe from legal actions by the church. A similar response applies. If independent Scientologists are practicing Scientology in the field the chances are great that they are exposed to legal liability and are simply regarded as too small or ineffective to deal with.
FICofS is set up to become a central organization, to expand and last beyond the lifetimes of those persons trained inside the church, and to train a new generation of Scientologists in the correct application of the technology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard.
FICofS NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT
The First Independent Church of Scientology belongs to those who take responsibility for it and make it happen. Our work is voluntary. No one has been compensated out of funds donated to either Religious Liberty League or to SaveScientology.com before it.
100% of all donations have been used solely to defer expenses.
We have paved the way. We will continue our efforts as long as there remains support for it. Much more in the way of donations will be required to make FICofS a reality.
The plan is to not open the doors until we have:
● The technology in place, which means having a grade chart, courses and check sheets approved by the Technical Standards Committee (TSC). This is well in progress. The TSC is in the final stages of approving a grade chart which will then be published for feedback and comments.
● The management style and policies in place. We plan to create a committee of highly trained and experienced persons in both Scientology administration and non-Scientology enterprises to help on this.
Note: We will write an article or series of articles debunking the false notion that Green-on-White policy for the management of Scientology organizations is set in stone and subject to Keeping Scientology Working (KSW).
● Key personnel recruited.
● A war chest sufficient to defend anticipated legal attacks from the church.
● At least six-months’ operating expenses, including staff pay, until the organization is viable.
So please contribute as much as you can, in any way you can.
Two Frequently Asked Questions
1. Whose church is this? Answer: no one’s, it belongs to those who step up and take responsibility for it. Who owns it? No one. It is a non-profit religious corporation.
Jim Fonda and I (the proprietor of Religious Liberty League) established it. I agreed to be a trustee along with him. We are acting also as a board of directors but we intend to appoint others. We are filling corporate officer positions temporarily until the board of directors appoints officers. The board will select an Executive Director at some point.
2. Are there plans to police the field? No. As long as Jim Fonda and I are trustees you can be assured that FICofS will strictly adhere to LRH’s admonition: “A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly.”[1]
No doubt other FAQs exist. We will either address them in the Comments section below or update this article.
_________________________________
[1] HCO PL 29 April 1965, Issue III, Ethics Review
Absolutely wonderful news Merrill 🙂
Would it be possible to briefly, but truthfully and accurately as are your legal articles, describe the differences in Copyright issues as covered here and the clearing of false data on that and the Trademark issues?
For instance, some years back you and I discussed the Trademark issue and RTC’s lack of timely response to use of them on the internet in blogs, websites for auditors and so on. I for example have used the marks abundantly and purposefully for myself as a Scientologist practicing L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology independent of the CofS. CofS is fully aware of this as I have had frequent mails sent to me from sundry departments of that entity. RTC is aware. Yet, no letters legal or otherwise have been sent to dissuade me from pronouncing myself as a Scientologist practicing Scientology. I don’t sell packs, I don’t violate copyrights on materials, but I practice Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard’s brand, using HCOB’s and tapes that define Standard Tech and describe how to study, learn and apply it as it is meant to be done.
Is it not a situation of lack of timely approach to me by RTC that makes it difficult if not impossible to pursue a successful legal tack re these marks? Sure, they can rattle swords and file suit, but on the face of the merits, there is this issue of timely response and vigorous action to protect these marks when used in the open market, is it not? This is to say nothing of the “equity” defense of “dirty hands” should it come to pass RTC decides to pursue me on the issue of the marks as well as other legal strategies and tactics that can be deployed to fend off DM and his attempt to take back what he thinks he has in his own li’l pocket.
Jim
Copyright and trademark law is a specialized field. Our legal experts set me straight on the subject. 🙂
Our lawyers located and read every single infringement case brought against others by the church and concluded that its enforcement efforts were quite vigorous, more than sufficient to overcome a defense of lack of enforcement. As the article points out, copyright holders can engage in selective enforcement.
We presented all different scenarios for the free practice of Scientology and they explored every conceivable legal argument and defense. A very in-depth study.
Good stuff, Merrell. Well-written article that starts a new page for FICS. Great letters by the lawyer as well. I will definitely be following this and supporting it as I can. Thanks for all you’ve done and are doing. 🙂
ARC,
Chris
Really glad to hear things are moving in this direction! Thank you very much!
Congratulations on achieving a first step in preserving LRH’s intended legacy for actual Scientology. There is a long road ahead but real Scientologists will prevail while continuing to practice actual Scientology.
I was wondering Merrell, if you and your legal team were aware of the Geoffrey Filbert copyright victory over RTC.
Probate Case #20885, San Luis Obispo County, California
I will post some links so that this can be looked into further:
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/filert-excalibur-copyrights.txt
http://www.lermanet.com/newimages/filbert/
http://www.freezoneearth.org/excal/fr_excal.html
Thanks for taking the time/effort to point this out. Do not recall without viewing the links, which I will do later.
Thanks for clarifying the issues concerning copyright and trademarks for me. Much needed info.
I see you’re doing very good work on this. Just one icky picky point and that is I notice you use “Scientology Religion” in your letters to RTC and CST respectively.
The above is actually a false construct created by the formerly Secret Closing Agreement between Scientology and the IRS in 1993. It should be known as the “Religion of Scientology” as covered in the CST Articles and Bylaws.
Also in regard to the above Closing Agreement a “Scientologist” was redefined to mean someone who is a member of the Church of Scientology when originally it just meant someone who applied Scientology to themselves and others. See the Dianetics and Scientology Technical dictionary and references cited.
Regarding copyrights and trademarks. I personally question the use of these laws to infringe upon a practitioner of Scientology’s First Amendment right. I could be wrong but the reason for these laws by my own personal study was to prevent alterations of the subject written by others other than the Founder of Scientology from being called “Scientology” and used to mislead the public.
Not! What is currently being done which is creating a monopoly over the subject by the organization.
That said. I wish you and your team the best.
LR
The definitions used in the closing agreement with the IRS are set forth for the purpose of interpreting that agreement and have no authority beyond it.
In each license request letter the First Independent Church of Scientology (FICS) states it “is willing and able to… be subjected to any reasonable restrictions that the licensor may impose on the license.”
What restrictions would FICS find reasonable? What restrictions would FICS find unreasonably and presumably unacceptable?
Does FICS have any concern that it will wind up being a Church of Scientology Mission, or otherwise under the full supervision and control of CST, RTC, CSI or the corporate Church of Scientology generally, through IHelp or otherwise?
Reasonable versus Unreasonable. We can’t define it, but will know it when we see it.
Zero concern that FICofS will wind up being under the full supervision and control of CofS. Won’t happen.
Thank you very much for replying. Another question, if I may. Will the license agreement(s) and any “reasonable restrictions” be made available to: (a) the public generally; (b) prospective parishioners of FICS; or (c) actual parishioners of FICS?
We assume you are talking about a license entered into with the C of S as opposed to a constructive license imposed by the courts. We do not expect the former. We rather expect the C of S to ignore our request. But if we did enter into negotiations and agreed terms to a license we see no reason that we would not publish those terms. We have called for transparency with the C of S and we expect no less for the FICofS, otherwise we might speak out against it and form the Second… But then it is difficult to address hypothetical questions. Would C of S demand a confidentiality agreement as to one or more terms? Might there be an unforeseen reasonable basis for one?
The licensor’s of a process when coupled with the TM name have, in the courts, great power to demand almost complete QA oversight to ensure brand integrity. Refusing that is grounds for refusing a license.
Decoupling that will be next to impossible without statutory changes.
What “process coupled with a trademark name” are you talking about?
We did a quick online search of those terms and came up with something regarding trade secret licenses coupled with a trademark license. We are not seeking a trade secret license.
Always good to hear encouraging news!
A great goal! Donation follows.
Donation received. Thanks!
Interesting and informative. Thanks Merrell! I think you should bill RTC and CST for doing their job for them 🙂