Image talk:GregoryXVII.jpg

"no indication whatsoever of copyright. Given propagandistic nature of website unlikely to be copyrighted." - Eh? Since when was there a special propagandists-don't-get-copyrights rule? I think we've established by now that photographs are copyright unless we're specifically told otherwise. -- Oliver P. 09:45 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

1. The images on the site are widely used in sites pro and deeply hostile to this character. If there was a copyright issue, they would have pulled the photographs from the sites that rudely attack him. No site using those photographs has had any problem whatsoever.
   
   
2. His site has not been updated for years, a fact noted in link sites who wonder indeed if those who set up the site have simply abandoned it. In fact it is dated 1980, which suggests that someone just tranferred en masse some documentation on him onto a site, leaving even the date of the original document, which well predates the existence of the internet as we know it.
   
   
3. The central argument of his site is that he is pope. He wants to get that promoted to the widest possible audience, believing in doing that he is acting on the instruction of Christ. As a result, far from having any problem with Wikipedia using a photograph, even if it was copyrighted, which the evidence suggests it isn't if they notice the page they would almost certainly be over the moon, given that an international encyclopædia takes him sufficiently seriously to give him a page. I used to work in public relations, and Wikipedia is the sort of site I'd be encouraging anyone who wants to establish credibility to get themselves on. Even if the picture was copyrighted, which its widespread use in hostile sites suggests is highly unlikely, no sensible person concerned with promoting their message would complain. Instead, if they ever notice, I suspect we'd find them adding information and more pictures. Because in theory simply by being on Wikipedia gives them a chance to get noticed by millions of people worldwide, which is their number 1 aim in promoting their message.

Though I named the site using his name, I set up a redirect page referring to him as an antipope. That was deliberate. Normally the term antipope is applied to someone who has a mass international following. It is unclear whether this gentleman has (his untouched website suggests otherwise). However calling him antipope is giving him a respect, because even though an antipope is an invalid pope, it nevertheless indicates that he is being treated as more than a nutter in a white dress. The article is NPOV, stating what he alleges, that they are allegations, and applies the term generally applied to claimants whose claims are not accepted. Realistic supporters of 'Gregory XVII' know there is no way Wikipedia could accept him as a valid pope. Calling him an antipope is the best they could expect short of that. So again, the fact that Wikipedia uses him on its website, the fact that his picture features alongside people like Paul VI, John XXIII, St. Pius X, etc, the NPOV respectful nature of the article written about him, is the sort of thing is followers would be more than happy with, a case to paraphrase a famous term, of 'any coverage is good coverage'.

As I say, having worked for some years in public relations, any client of mine would not merely not be unhappy with getting such coverage for free that could be accessed by millions, they would be over the moon and send messages to all their supporters 'look at the Wikipedia page on me. Tell others to look at it. Get the word around I'm taken sufficiently seriously to warrant an entry in an international internet encyclopædia.' On those grounds, there is a snowball's chance in hell of Gregory or his followers taking offence, in the unlikely event that the image is copyright, and as I say, the nature of its usage on the net strongly suggests that there is no copyright and that the supporters of Gregory are happy to get a mention anywhere because it highlights their cause and so may win more adherents. JTD 19:59 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)