As photocopy machines became ubiquitous and churches started to be sued for illegally copying music and other material, I attended a workshop about intellectual property and the legality and ethics of licensing and other mechanisms for churches to legally use material that had been created by others. At the workshop, the presenter jokingly referred to Charles Wesley, the Methodist leader and brother of John Wesley, who published the words to between 6,500 and 10,000 hymns, saying, “Under current US copyright law, Charles Wesley could have only published 6.” He wasn’t trying to document specific numbers, but rather to make the simple point that the understanding of the ownership of ideas has undergone dramatic changes over time. In different times and different cultures appropriating the idea of another has been viewed quite differently than it is in our country today where huge numbers of lawyers ply their trade in attempts to protect ownership of ideas and creations.

As a pastor intent on following the law, I soon learned that one of the reasons that the popular hymn, “The Little Brown Church in the Vale” or “Church in the Wildwood” wasn’t in very many hymnals was that permission to print the hymn is very expensive. All of the money that has been transacted when famous artists such as Alabama, The Statler Brothers, Dolly Parton, Andy Griffith or the Carter Family have recorded the song has not gone to the estate of William S. Pitts, who originally wrote the tune and the words. Pitts sold the rights to the song for a small amount of money. Those rights have been exchanged as a commodity as their value has increased over time.

I remember being surprised to learn that our national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, with words of a poem by Francis Scott Key, was set to a tune not written by Key, but rather to a popular English drinking song, “To Anacreon in Heaven.” The tune used by Key was originally dedicated to the ancient Greek poet Anacreon, known for his love of wine. Key was not a poet by trade. He was, rather, a lawyer. Presumably he followed the law in marketing his song. I doubt, however, that he ever paid royalties to the Anacreontic Society, a London gentlemen’s club that used the tune with different words as its theme song.

I have a distant relative who was a pioneer photographer in the Montana Territory before statehood. His portraits of Crow, Cheyenne, and Sioux leaders became treasured. He, however, was not a prudent manager of money and sold the rights to his photographs for small amounts when he was in need of cash. Later some of his images appeared in a book that also contained demeaning and pornographic images of women. He had not taken the objectionable photos, but his name has been subsequently become associated with exploitation. The books of photographs by L.A. Huffman no longer appear in many stores because of that association.

The concept that an idea can be owned has not always been present. There have been times when using the idea of another person has been seen as a way of honoring that person and giving that person a compliment. It is easy to understand why creators need to have their work protected and deserve fair compensation for producing their art. It is more difficult to see how that compensation can become an inheritable and exchangeable commodity.

Recent news stories have once again made me think of copyright and ownership of intellectual property. The maker of the film Blade Runner 2049 has sued Tesla, Elon Musk and Warner Bros Discovery, saying that they used imagery from the movie without permission. Production firm Alcon Entertainment claims it specifically denied a request for use of the material. In a separate action, the director of the 2004 film, “I Robot” accused Mr. Musk of copying his designs for humanoid machines and self-driving vehicles. The Tesla robotaxi event held on October 10, was titled “We Robot.” It seems as if there might have been some copying involved.

I have no idea how these law suits will be resolved, but I suspect that large amounts of money will be involved. Musk is a very rich man and the possibility of large judgements seems likely. The news, however, raises the question about whether the plaintiffs in the suits themselves were the originators of the ideas. “I, Robot” is the title of a collection of science fiction short stories by Isaac Asimov. The collection of previously published stories are organized around the them of the interaction between humans and robots and the ethics of those relationships. That 1950 book has inspired a lot of cinematic variations. An episode of The Outer Limits was named “I, Robot.” BBC Radio aired radio dramas of four of the stories from I, Robot. There may even be a reference to an idea of the book in a Dr. Who episode, “The Robots of Death.”

The list of artists who have filed lawsuit against the Trump campaign for unauthorized use of music continues to grow every day. Some have gained temporary injunctions prohibiting the use of their songs by the candidate. It will take years for the suits to play out.

It is very hard to say where an idea originates. Although I claim ownership of this journal entry, the ideas upon which it is based come from a lot of different sources. I read a lot of articles published by others. I check out BBC and CBC and NPR and other media outlets. I even monitor Fox, reading more headlines than stories. I use search engines to check details and used Wikipedia to look up the dates of the movies referenced here. Is this my idea? Perhaps, but it is not exclusively mine. It is based on the thinking of many others. Some of the content of this article is based on a workshop that I attended whose leader’s name I cannot remember. I don’t even remember exactly when and where I attended that workshop. And there are a lot of songs credited to Charles Wesley that inhabit my brain. I don’t need to get out a hymnal to sing “Christ the Lord is Risen Today,” or “Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus.” I’ve been known to belt out “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing” without giving credit to the author of the words.

I think of myself as a writer and a source of original ideas, but it may be more accurate to describe me as a collection of ideas of others that get assembled into my essays.