((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
                       COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS
                                 FS - 1
                                ca. 1989
              Copyright (C) 1989 Hank Levin (Free Spirit)
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
            Copyright and Trademark Issues for Independents
     Originally appearing in THE FREE SPIRIT, December 1989, a quarterly
magazine published by the Council for Spiritual Integrity, and
distributed worldwide.  THE FREE SPIRIT serves as a forum for personal
consultants, therapists and healers to share various new ideas and
technologies whose purpose is to help people enhance their lives,
achieve personal and spiritual fulfillment, and to help them become
happier and more effective.  As many of these ideas are of a spiritual
nature, and some (but not all) are indeed derived from the work of L.
Ron Hubbard, THE FREE SPIRIT has an interest in seeing that people are
allowed to share and exchange what wisdom they have without restriction
or oppression from special interests.  Subscriptions to THE FREE SPIRIT
can be ordered in the USA by sending $15 to P.O. Box 6905, San Rafael,
CA 94903, or $25US for overseas subscriptions.
     I recently attended a lecture on copyright law for speakers and
workshop facilitators, which was given to the professional speakers club
which I belong to.  The lecturer is an attorney who is a managing
trademark counsel and copyright law expert, and works primarily for a
major oil company.  After his speech, which I found most interesting, I
introduced myself to him as the editor of the Free Spirit, a non-profit
publication, and asked if he would consider donating to me a private
appointment in that capacity.  Fortunately he agreed to do so, and
several days later was kind enough to sit with me for nearly two hours
answering questions and clarifying issues.  As I relaxed in his
beautiful San Francisco corporate office suite, I felt grateful that
this man was for me and not agin' me.
     Before I share with you all what was indicated to me at this
meeting, let me lay forth my own disclaimer, to the effect that I will
not be held liable for giving legal advice; that for purposes of
deciding any important legal matters the readers of this article treat
this data as hearsay, and confer with competent legal council on any
specific matters of consequence.  However, the subject matter in this
article could be used as a guide in planning your interview with an
attorney, giving him (for instance) a chance to say 'Wrong, litigation
breath' Hank Levin is missing some data!
     I had a number of questions which I felt were of interest not only
to myself, but to many of us whose job is to help people using
technology which has often been learned, purchased, taken, or otherwise
derived from others.  I explained that certain key ideas that many of us
consider essential to our work have emanated from or passed through the
hands of a Mr. L. Ron Hubbard.  Though he seldom, if ever, gave credit
to his own sources, Mr. Hubbard established a policy of ruthlessly
attacking not only actual copyright violations of his alleged 'original
works', but also anyone whose work was felt to be derivative of his
writings or ideas.  Furthermore, per written organizational policy,
Hubbard's 'Church' of Scientology traditionally attacks any individual
or organization whose operation is deemed to be competitive to itself,
with a special vengeance against those who have become apostate ((That
means they left or turned against their own religion)).  In this regard,
the 'church' is not acting in an unprecedented manner; but what is
unusual is the resourcefulness with which the society's legal system,
trade-mark, and copyright laws are used to devastate any who would
independently share what they have learned of value from Hubbard's
     I wanted to know exactly how copyright and trademark laws impinge
on references to Hubbard's ideas, techniques, concepts and organization
in the Free Spirit.  My questions centered around a practitioner's right
to utilize a technique which has been published, or which he has been
trained in, and adapt it to his own purposes without approval or license
by the original authority.  Must an ((independent)) lecturer disclose
all the sources of his or her ideas when giving a public presentation?
At what point does a professional courtesy ((to let people know where
you got it from)) become a legal obligation?  When we write, can we
protect ourselves by rewording the ideas?  Or is it better to use direct
quotes as long as we attribute the source?
     Furthermore, I had questions as to the exact status of several
books ((Ruth Minshull for one)) which I have found nearly indispensable
in sharing with raw public clients the facts of the effects of
suppression, emotional tone, and the ethical status of relationships
(known as ethics conditions).  These books in question were not written
by Hubbard, but are clearly derivative of his work.  The copyrights to
some, such as Ups and Downs, and How to Choose Your People by Ruth
Minshull are actually owned by Hubbard's Religious Technology
Corporation, which has not published it for years since the author
became disenchanted with the Church of Scientology.  Yet the book has
many fans among consultants and therapists whose clients find the books
to be sensitively written in a style which is far more accessible than
any available alternative.  What is the prospect of these titles
reverting to the author for revision and re-publication?
     Finally, what is the consequence of the fact that the name
Scientology itself is taken from the name of a book published in 1934 by
Dr.  A Nordenholz'a book on the study of learning (epistemology) based
on a set of Axioms!  Does the existence of this book (which will be
reproduced in part and discussed in a subsequent issue of the Free
Spirit) have any bearing on that church's rights to the name?
     I had brought with me copies of the various writings I have
mentioned, including some of my own.  'First of all', our friend
explained, 'we need to understand that in our legal system there are
essentially four distinct areas of creativity which are granted
protection.  Here are the four categories he delineated, along with the
specific aspects of originality which each is meant to protect:'
     1. Copyrights:  protect originality of expression
     2. Patents:  protect ideas and procedures
     3. Trade secrets:  protect exclusive access to valuable information
     4. Trademarks (and Service Marks):  protect names used in marketing
     To have a workable understanding of our rights and obligations
under each of these categories, it is essential to be able to
distinguish between them.  I recognized that we independents have at
times been seriously misled by confusing these four aspects.  That
confusion has perhaps been engendered and contributed to those who would
control us and defend their own interests at all costs.  Indeed,
claiming our rights in a court of law may be something else altogether.
But, my legal friend reminded me, the law never reaches out to protect
anyone, it merely provides the tools for self-protection to those
familiar with it!  Let us examine the similarities, differences, and
     Copyright protects the expression of ideas, but not the use.  It is
meant to protect the writer, not the inventor or researcher.  Suppose I
were to invent a procedure to create a new petroleum product using
refining technology, and I were to write this up in a trade journal or
pamphlet for recognition.  And suppose I were to protect myself only by
copyrighting my manuscript (which occurs automatically, although one is
advised to attach 'Copyright (C) 1989 Your Name' to the work).  If some
oil company were to start using my article to set up and manufacture the
product themselves, I would have no protection or recourse whatsoever.
Copyright does not protect one from the use of my procedure if it has in
fact been publicly published.
     Now, suppose I discovered that they had made a literal
transcription of my article, and distributed it to their design
engineers and essential production personnel, rather than doing their
own write-up.  Then I would have recourse to damages under the copyright
laws.  Suppose they merely paraphrased it, substituting words here and
there?  Under current law this would still be considered an
     However, if the expression of the facts were substantially
different from mine, especially if additional ideas were set forth, and
only small parts of my text could be shown to be borrowed, this would be
judged on a one-to-one basis.  Attention would be paid to the percentage
of my text which had been copied.  Remember, the court would only be
looking at the percentage of my expression that has been plagiarized,
not the percentage of the over all idea which was mine!
     ((This means that the expressed idea can be 100 percent yours, but
if the rewrite is different than yours, you are not protected.))
     There are several other factors to consider.  These are called
'Fair Use Issues'.  This means that under certain circumstances an
author can be directly quoted.  The First Amendment gives us the right
to comment on anything written.  Of course, attributing the source to
the original author would lend more power to the argument that one is
exercising the right of commentary.  In fact, our expert said that one
wouldn't even have to make a direct attribution, an indirect reference
would do.  (Such as 'A popular writer has said...')
     Another consideration in the 'fair use' issue would be whether the
copied work was being used for educational purposes, or for non-profit
use.  If the work was being employed commercially, one could be much
more liable.  As mentioned above, the proportion used would have to be
taken into consideration.  If out of an entire book, three technical
expressions were copied, this would probably be taken as an
insignificant proportion.
     Yet another important point would be that of the impact on the
value of the copyrighted work.  For instance, is it out of print?  If I
copy and distribute copies of a current exclusive financial newsletter
which is being sold by subscription, that is a lot different from
distributing two year old copies of the same newsletter, especially if
the old copies are nowhere to be had.
     Incidentally, to my question about whether there is a convention in
the printing industry about whether a copyright reverts to the original
author if the book has not been published for a certain length of time,
I was told that this is not just a convention; since 1978 it is the law.
However, the author must take action to secure the rights, as it is not
automatic.  Also, there is a timetable involved.  Ruth Minshull, are you
     Now a patent will protect ideas and procedures from unauthorized
commercial use.  Conceivably, the procedure for remedying a 'missed
withhold' could be patented.  The trouble with that is that the
determination as to whether the procedure can be shown to work is so
subjective that it probably would not pass muster in the U.S.  Patent
Office, and this is true of most of Hubbard's developments.  The simple
fact is, his technology is not patented.
    ((Yeah, but they tried, they tried, 1970...
     22.  Steps are being undertaken to patent all Scientology and
Dianetic processes thus preventing anyone from using them without
     ...such wonderful people.))
     The prevalent confusion between patent and copyright was stated in
a letter from Irene Mumford of the Dianasis Data Network.  She wrote:
"They (Hubbard's church) have systematically enforced their reality on
the Independents that copyright is a form of patent; that the use of
scientology is protected by copyright and that in using or delivering
scientology the deliverer is open to hassle and litigation.  This has
had the effect of either driving the tech-deliverers into less hazardous
fields of endeavor or, worse, into hiding.  Truly, a sad course of
     Another way of protecting ideas and procedures is as trade secrets,
which can be protected by a contract between the originator and someone
with restricted license or authorization to use the material.  The
contract is only binding between the signatories.  If someone else sees
the materials published somewhere else (like in the Clearwater Times),
they are not bound by the contract.  Of course, enforcing such a
contract would be contingent on the circumstances and the integrity and
wording of the contract.
     The final issue in the protection of originality is that of
trademarks (tm) or service-marks (sm) in the case of a service.  Being
the first to use a word as the name of a product or service gives one
some privileges; affixing the 'tm' or 'sm' to the name gives one more.
Once the name is fully registered with the federal government, one has
the right to use a special symbol over one's trademark (R), which is
best.  A trademark is a symbol which is used to represent a product or
service in marketing.  It does not 'corner the usual English language
use of the word' only the utilization of the word in representing a
service or product.  For instance, Shell Oil Company cannot restrict me
from discussing sea shells, or egg shells.  I simply cannot use the word
'Shell' as the name of a product or company for purposes of marketing,
especially a petroleum product.  (I might get away with 'Shell Dry
Cleaning', until it got big enough so it could be argued that I have
confused the oil company's image.)
     If the trademark is a manufactured name, like Exxon, there is less
excuse for people to be bandying the name about.  When was the last time
you heard or read about exxons?  Now, let's take the name 'scientology'.
This, of course, refers to an intellectual process, originally discussed
in 1934 by Dr.  Nordenholz in Scientologie:  Wissenschaft von der
Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens (Scientology:  Science
of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge and Knowing, Berlin
     Thus, there is, as many of us have been saying all along, a
distinct difference between scientology and Scientology(R).  (The First
Amendment gives me the right to refer to Scientology(R) in stating that
opinion!)  If you do counselling, personal consulting, hypnosis or
anything of the sort, you are strictly forbidden from representing it as
Scientology(R), or claiming any affiliation with that organization.
However, there is nothing legally restricting you from describing your
procedures as scientological, or scientology style personal processing.
(Why anyone would want to do such a thing, however, is beyond me, I am
constantly asked for reassurance by prospective clients that I have no
affiliation with the Church of Scientology!)
     (('Tell them anything, but PLEASE just don't tell them I am a
Scientologist!  ANYTHING but that!'))
     Now, that brings us to another issue.  What about the fact that
anyone can sue anyone else about anything?  Well, yes, that is true.  In
fact, some organizations or individuals have been known to follow an
explicit policy of using the legal system to bring their real or
imagined adversaries to their knees economically, regardless of the
merits of the accusations.  My legal mentor shared several technical
terms for this:
     specious lawsuit (vaguely plausible but not genuine)
     malicious prosecution (for which the plaintiff would be liable)
     abuse of process (for which their lawyers would be liable).
     ((You see here is the secret, the LAWYERS see the church of
Scientology as a GOLD MINE.  You get this?  They don't care about the
tech, they don't care about religion, they don't care about spiritual
advancement, they don't care about their own damn souls.  They care
about the bottom line.
     They see the Church as an endless source of income because Freedom
Fighters will always be springing up practicing Truth and E-meter
drills, and the Church will always have endless numbers of blood and
dollars to fight them down, from loyal followers, and celebrities and
all that.  People with money who will pay that money for another robot
     You think they are running OUT OT II?
     You know it is not the common man who is paying for all these great
Scientology Services at $300 an hour of auditing.  It is the very famous
and rich.  Scientology is no longer for the common man, it is no longer
for you and me.  When the rich all go clear, what do you think they will
do with the poor common man, lower prices?
     You know everyone on this list is always yapping about OT III and
what nonsense it is.  That's because they got no reality on it.  You
know why?  BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T RUN OT II yet which is the main source
of blocks against DIRECT perception of other beings, which of course is
what OT III is all about.
     The primary reason that OT II is so secret, is because it is really
very deadly material, it IS WHY people act like robots all around you,
live once, die once, you are all alone, obey etc.
     You know Solitary Confinement.  This is a joke, right?  How can you
be alone when you are MADE of other beings!  But that is what OT II
does, it makes you alone and cold.
     This material in the wrong hands could actually wipe out a
civilization in a few generations.  They don't call them the Medusa's
Throne Implants for nothing.  It turns everyone to stone.
     'Stupid Fear, Stone Cold Hearts and Stone Dead Souls form the
Throne of Medusa - Adore'
     So if you have this material and you know how to run it out, you
can also run it IN, don't you see?  It all depends on your motivation
and intention.  If you yourself are a slave to OT II, then you will run
it IN, no matter how much training you have.
     People talk about OT III because they can't confront OT II.
     OT II makes other beings seem ridiculous.  Stones aren't very good
at perceiving life in abundance.
     The OT II material is so powerful that if you are around it all day
long and are constantly exposed to it, in yourself and in others, either
directly or via everyone's dramatizations, and YOU DON'T SUCCESSFULLY
RUN IT OUT, you can become contaminated by it, it just takes over, and
pretty soon you are DOING it to others rather than helping them up their
     The shift from running OT II OUT to running OT II IN is so subtle
no one ever notices, they just get more stone like.
     And remember, the basic purpose of a Stone is to Crush Adorable
Operating Pride Units like yourself.
     So this is why this material is so secret and protected by the
Church.  Originally it was for your own good.  But really do you want
this material solely in the hands of the present day Church?  They are
trustworthy, right?))
     These are the 'magic words' to remember.  The legal system is set
up to at least nominally discourage its own misapplication through the
above methods, and on occasion awards substantial punitive damages to
those who have been so abused.  The exact differences between them
should be a matter for further study, if you need them.  But referring
to those three will make someone think more than twice about harassing
you, another useful term.
     ((Part of the reason that the Church is not so successful in
England and Europe is because they have very strong laws against
frivolous use of the law to harass.  The kick back can ruin you there,
over here, there is very little to stop people who want to use the law
     That is why the Free Zone is prospering and flourishing in Europe,
and why America may become the last bastion of the official Church in
the Free World.  The Free Zone over in Europe though is taking notice of
what is going on over here.))
     Just remember that the legal system will never reach out and hand
you your rights, they must be knowledgeably and belligerently claimed.
So if someone complains that you have infringed on copyrights in the
course of your practice, ask your attorney how he feels about the
     1) Insist that they contact you in writing, and put forth the
infringement claimed, including the exact item (title, page, paragraph,
line, etc.) and how you committed the infringement (title, page, etc.)
Express a willingness to correct the situation if there is indeed a
valid infringement.
     2) You put the above request in writing to them.  Indicate that in
lieu of their compliance with your request, further contact from them
will be considered harassment.
     3) Log every contact from them, entering date and time, personnel
involved (get their names) what was requested and how you responded.
Then send them a copy.  This creates a 'paper trail' which may give
credibility to your claim of harassment.
     4) If you get a legitimate complaint, you have to work it out.
Don't not-is it, but don't propitiate.  Discuss it with a copyright
lawyer before you make any concession.  And don't throw away the very
extensive rights that you have by signing any of those stupid contracts.
     I wanted to share this with you.  Don't bet your life on what you
read here, but do use it to form an intelligent line of questioning if
you have to contact an attorney.  It is conceivable that you could now
contact one who knows less that you, if so, you've just found the wrong
attorney, so get another one.  Remember, attorneys are not trained to
facilitate things, just to see how they could be stopped.  So don't let
this squelch your create.  We are not dying, we are growing.  And we
have more friends than you may know.  More about that later!
     Hank Levin
Homer Wilson Smith           This file may be found at
homer@rahul.net              ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/act/fs1.memo
Posted to usenet newsgroup:  alt.clearing.technology