So every time their affair is brought up people love to bring out the “22 is not a child argument”. Here is the thing:

They made minor differences and that gets a pass quite frequently.

You’re presenting a case about Fair Use (which applies to non copy write work), not Public Domain.

That image of Baphomet with the two people has been around for quite a while

The statues are basically identical, the ST one is copyrighted, and the devil card from the tarot deck does not have two adorable little children gazing up at Baphomet, it depicts two adults chained.

The statue is indeed under copywrite. The issue is not the baphomet, but the specific depiction of the baphomet with children, resembling a statue that was commissioned specifically by the Satanic Temple. They have to chase this, or it will be more difficult for them to do so in the future.

Yes, the statues are similar

It’s the kids looking up to him which is a specific artwork they commissioned. If someone copies a unique piece of art it will be subject to that. This article has the pictures.

1.) This group is not in anyway associated with Anton LaVey or his Church. Why would they care that AHS is making fun of him?

2.) Anton LaVey is a public figure. Unlike works of art, you can’t trademark or copyright a public figure. It’s possible his family could sue for defamation but, given their father’s prominence…

As far as I know, anything LaVey related would probably be the purview of the LaVey-founded Church of Satan, rather than the independent Temple of Satan, but beyond that, the likeness of a person is far different from a carbon copy of a work of art.

That’s it. I think that the ST statue is mocking the portrayals of Jesus with children, which presumably relate to the gospel story.

I have to say that, it’s the use of the kids in the Netflix show that makes it problematic because that is beyond just a depiction of Baphomet.

While you couldn’t copyright a Star of David or a cross, you could almost certainly copyright a specific crucifix design. This is sort of the same thing. It’s not just the image of Baphomet, but the very specific design including the children looking up at him.

I think the Satanic Temple is different than the Church of Satan. The Satanic Temple’s main thing is to try to subvert religious freedom laws or use religious freedom arguments (ie in a challenge against restrictive abortion laws) to challenge the way those laws and arguments almost exclusively mean religious freedom…

Why not? This artist has a right to retain ownership of his work, and to be compensated for that work if someone else chooses to license it. The fact that they’re a religious organization and the artwork depicts a religious symbol is irrelevant.  Netflix is illegally profiting off of someone else’s work without…

They aren’t copyrighting all depictions of Baphomet. They have a copyright on that very specific depiction of him. The statue in the show is a 1:1 replica of a piece that was originally commissioned by the temple.

I am loosely connected to the people who made the statue originally, and I can tell you that the thing is massive, took a very long time to fabricate, and was made with great care. It’s an art piece more than anything. It is truly mind boggling that the Sabrina producers thought they could just copy the whole thing…

And then as a dad you take your kid to the park, and “Oh, it’s so nice of you to babysit and give your wife a break!” Babysit? It’s parenting, and I don’t need a cookie for stepping over that bar.

Gay men are not immune to transphobia. And auditioning everyone regardless of gender is horseshit. Would you applaud it if someone who was casting for Harriet Tubman auditioned everyone, regardless of race?

Ummm, 500 people is NOT a lot for a lead role. I produce effing TV commercials and regularly look at that many people for a 30 second role. This excuse is bullshit. Pure and simple. And he assumes that it will fly because the average person is going to say “WOW! 500 auditions? Well, he certainly did his due…