Copyrighting?

[KSUCE03]

I'm very interested in the discussion about Bible translations.

Has anyone here discussed the issues involved with copyrighting and publishing new editions?

Every time a publisher releases a new edition of a book, they have to make a certain number of changes.

Does anyone know how that may or may not have affected our modern Bibles?

[TwinCrier]

From: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

A “derivative work,” that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an “original work of authorship.” Derivative works, also known as “new versions,” include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a derivative work or new version.
A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.
To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

If someone were to just "take out the thees and thous and archaic words" there wouldn't bee nearly enough changes to warrant a new copyright, but most modern versions change, add or omit words in every single sentence, so the whole work is copyrightable.

[KSUCE03]

Which to me says that the text is changing with every released edition.

Changes can be made outside the main text also.

[No Swansong]

Except in the U.S. the King James Bible is not copyrighted.

[Logos1560]

A number of KJV-only authors make such a claim, but I have not found actual evidence to support it.

Doug Stauffer claimed: “The only way to qualify for a new copyright is to make a sufficient number of changes to an existing text” (One Book, p. 121). Stauffer also wrote: “In order to qualify for a new copyright, the revisers know that they must change a significant amount of the text” (p. 97). Mickey Carter alleged: “Some publishers change just enough of the Bible to obtain a copyright on it” (Things That Are Different, p. 140). D. A. Waite claimed: “There is a certain number of words which must be changed in order to obtain a copyright” (Central Seminary, p. 116). After Gail Riplinger cited the following from the derivative copyright law [“Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes”],
she suggested that new Bible versions have to change the words of the KJV “into complex, multi-syllable Latinized words” to get a copyright (Language of the KJB, p. 152). Riplinger asserted: “To establish their copyrights, each new version editor must find different words, which have not yet been copywritten by other new version editors” (In Awe, p. 108). She claimed: “The NKJV scrambles the majestic KJV in 1 Timothy 6:8 to fulfill copyright requirements” (p. 178). Are these KJV-only claims valid?

Did the KJV make a sufficient number of changes in the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision to merit its copyright? Should it be assumed that the exact same rules apply to the translating of old texts especially Bibles as apply to the revision of an author‘s earlier work?

The fact that the 1994 21st Century KJV and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible that are almost identical in text both have copyrights seems to conflict with the above KJV-only claims. There are only a small number of differences between the 1994 KJ21 and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible. The 1994 KJ21 only updates the archiac words in the KJV, and yet it has a copyright.
The 1994 KJ21 would be closer in text to the KJV than the KJV is to the 1568 Bishops' Bible of which the 1611 KJV was a revision.

[No Swansong]

I am not a King James Onlyist. But it is true that there is no copyright in the U.S. on the AV. I could tomorrow publish it, bind it and sell it. (assuming I had the funds to do so) There is a Crown Copyright in the UK. As for the other versions you mention that have copyrights I cannot comment as I am not familar with them. However there are many AV's out there that have copyrights for their study notes etc.

[arunma]

I am not a King James Onlyist. But it is true that there is no copyright in the U.S. on the AV. I could tomorrow publish it, bind it and sell it. (assuming I had the funds to do so) There is a Crown Copyright in the UK. As for the other versions you mention that have copyrights I cannot comment as I am not familar with them. However there are many AV's out there that have copyrights for their study notes etc.

I too have heard that the Royal Family of Britain holds a copyright on the King James Version of the Bible. This is an important consideration for KJV-onlyists, who claim that the KJV is the only Bible that isn't copyrighted.

[Logos1560]

The 1611 KJV had the copyright of that day. The copyright of that day existed more for the benefit of printers or publishers than for the authors or translators. John Tebbel wrote: “There had been a copyright of sorts in England from 1518” (History of Book Publishing, p. 46). Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, noted that Robert Barker paid 3,500 pounds for the copyright of the KJV and that Barker's firm held the rights to print the KJV until 1709 (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 226). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also pointed out that Robert Barker bought the final manuscript of the KJV (now lost) for 3,500 pounds, "which included the copyright" (p. 135). W. H. T. Wrede noted that Cantrell Legge, printer at Cambridge, attempted to print the 1611 KJV in 1614, but Robert Baker “claimed the sole right of Bible printing under his Patent” and prevented him from printing it (Short History, pp. 5-6). Allister McGrath observed that "Barker was obliged to hand over the copyright to Bonham Norton in 1617 as financial security" and only regained control of it in 1629 (In The Beginning, p. 199). Barker would end up in prison for debt.


Theodore Letis, a defender of the Textus Receptus, wrote: "This Bible [the KJV] had the Cum Privilegio ("with privilege") printed on it which meant that the Crown of England, as the official head of the state church, held the copyright to this Bible, giving permission only to those printers which the Crown had chosen" (Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists, p. 29). KJV-only author David Cloud acknowledged that “the King James Bible was produced under the direct authority of the British Crown and is owned and ’copyrighted’ by the crown of England” (Faith, p. 584).

[No Swansong]

As far as I have read. (perhaps we should get an attorney to check for us) The AV is Public Domain.

[Logos1560]

The AV is Public Domain.

The KJV is in the public domain in the United States now, but that was not true before the Revolutionary War. The KJV may not be in the public domain in Great Britain.

In the reference work Dictionary of Christianity in America, this fact is stated: "Before the Revolutionary War, the publication of English-language Bibles was prohibited in America, since the King's printers in England enjoyed an exclusive copyright to printing the KJV" (p. 132). Margaret Hills wrote: "After the Revolution American printers felt no compunction to heed the British monopoly on the printing of the King James Bible" (English Bible in America, p. xvii). De Hamel observed: "It had not been legal to publish any English Bible in North America while it was a British colony" (The Book, p. 259).


Christopher De Hamel maintained that the text of the KJV “was protected by copyright” (The Book, p. 246). For example, De Hamel noted that the copies of the KJV printed by Oxford in 1860 were “still protected by copyright” (p. 265). Jack Lewis stated: "The King James still enjoys copyright protection in Britain" (English Bible from KJV to NIV, p. 107). David Cloud pointed out that “the British government still licenses all printings of the [KJV’s] text in Great Britain” (Faith, p. 584). A present-day KJV edition, called the Standard Text Edition and printed in Great Britain by the Cambridge University Press, noted: "Rights in the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible are vested in the Crown." The present-day Online Bible computer program includes the following note: "Extracts from the Authorised Version of the Bible, the rights in which are vested in the Crown, are reproduced by permission of the Crown's patentee."

[No Swansong]

Right I knew that in the UK there was still a Crown Copyright. What I don't understand is how this affects the KJO argument on way or another.

[Logos1560]

What I don't understand is how this affects the KJO argument on way or another.

KJV-only authors claim that the KJV's claimed lack of copyright is proof for their KJV-only view. Here are some example quotations from KJV-only authors.

Peter Ruckman wrote: "I believe the King James Bible is the Word of God because it has no copyright on it" (Why I Believe the KJV is the Word of God, p. 3). Ruckman also incorrectly claimed that the KJV "is the only bible in the world that anyone can reproduce, print, or copy without consulting anyone but God" (Bible Babel, p. 22).


This same invalid claim has been repeated in many KJV-only publications, and it is an essential part of their argument. For example, William Grady wrote: "The basic difference between the King James Bible and all modern facsimiles can be determined by the presence (or absence) of that little c meaning copyright" (Final Authority, p. 284). Pastor Bruce Cummons declared: "I believe the KJV is the Word of God because of its lack of copyright" (Foundation and Authority of the Word of God, p. 51). Jim Ellis asserted: “One of the most obvious arguments in favor of the King James Bible is that it is the only one that is not copyrighted” (Only Two Bibles, p. 17). Barry Burton claimed: "Is the King James copyrighted? No! Why? You cannot copyright God's Word" (Let's Weigh the Evidence, p. 79). Gail A. Riplinger also wrote: "The KJV is the only version not bound by a copyright" (New Age Bible Versions, p. 171). Pastor Randy Starr claimed: "The KJV has no publisher or copyright" (Why We Use only the KJB of the Bible, p. 18). Charles Turner wrote: "The King James Version is the only text of the Bible that has no copyright" (Why the KJV, p. 2). Evangelist William Bradley stated: "The King James Bible is not, nor has it ever been, copyrighted" (To All Generations, p. 69). Michael O’Neal wrote: “The text of your King James Bible, beloved, is not copyrighted” (Do We Have, p. 19). Ansel Metz claimed: "The Authorized King James Bible is not copyrighted. It is public domain and always has been" (Analysis of the KJ21, p. 10). Len Smith wrote: “The text of the King James is neither owned nor controlled by man” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 17). Jeff Fugate commented: "You look in your Bible, and if it's a King James (if it's not, you may as well just throw it away, because it's not an inspired book any more than the song book is), but if you'll look at the King James Bible you will not find a copyright in it" (Revival Fires, July, 1996, p. 13).

[Logos1560]

There are many other English translations that no longer have a copyright, including the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, Wesley's 1755 translation, several translations in the 1800's such as Webster's 1833 Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, 1866 American Bible Union Version, Young's Literal Translation, etc., and even a couple in the early 1900's such as the 1901 ASV and the 1912 Improved Edition published by the American Baptist Publication Society. Furthermore, the present-day English translation called the World English Bible is in the public domain and has no copyright. Therefore, it is clearly inaccurate to claim that the KJV never had a copyright or that it is the only translation that presently does not have one.

[No Swansong]

I guess where I am not making the connection is why not having a copyright (were it true) strengthens the argument for King James Onlyists. I am not looking for confrontation, I understand the arguments concerning sources and I am currently investigating these arguments but I don't understand how the copyright issue would strengthen their contention that the King James is the only reliable translation.

[arunma]

I guess where I am not making the connection is why not having a copyright (were it true) strengthens the argument for King James Onlyists. I am not looking for confrontation, I understand the arguments concerning sources and I am currently investigating these arguments but I don't understand how the copyright issue would strengthen their contention that the King James is the only reliable translation.

The King James Onlyists I've spoken to claim that it is wrong to make a profit from the sale of the Bible. That said, what I think they are really referring to is the act of collecting fees from those who print the Bible, since even the KJV is sold by bookstores above cost. I am guessing that they are pointing to a moral flaw on the part of the translators, who make profit from the task of translating the Bible into English.

[No Swansong]

Thanks for the clarification. Do you who are KJO agree?

[No Swansong]

The King James Onlyists I've spoken to claim that it is wrong to make a profit from the sale of the Bible. That said, what I think they are really referring to is the act of collecting fees from those who print the Bible, since even the KJV is sold by bookstores above cost. I am guessing that they are pointing to a moral flaw on the part of the translators, who make profit from the task of translating the Bible into English.
Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of the translation.

[arunma]

Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of the translation.

Quite true. It is entirely concievable (though in practice a bit unlikely) that an unbeliever could produce an accurate translation.

[KSUCE03]

My point was that even a very well translated scripture could become less and less accurate if it was changed for copyrighting purposes.

[Logos1560]

My point was that even a very well translated scripture could become less and less accurate if it was changed for copyrighting purposes.

I don't know of any valid evidence that supports the accusation that changes are introduced in translation for the purpose of obtaining a copyright. Where is the evidence to support that claim?

Examples have already been provided where copyrights are found on two different translations [the 1994 KJ21 and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible] that are almost identical in text.

KJV-only author Mickey Carter claimed that King James “turned the Crown copyright over to the people” (Things That Are Different, p. 141). Where is the evidence for this author's claim? Then Carter asserted: “The Authorized Version is authorized by the people. The copyright belongs to the people, the priesthood of believers” (p. 141). Do the publishers of the KJV give their profits from its printing to this claimed holder of its copyright: the priesthood of believers?

[hindsey]

The KJV doesn't have a technical "copyright" on it. The King didn't want to have rights to it expire, so they didn't place a copyright on it, but some other thing... Had it been a copyright, America would have honored it in this country, but since it wasn't, it became public domain.

Many, many versions today seem to have the intent of just making money - there are some that are otherwise, but publishers are making versions that will meet the desires of people, thus selling more copies... However, the copyright argument is not a good one in support of the KJV.

- and to clarify, I am a KJV defender

[Logos1560]

Many years later, some printers in Great Britain found ways to try to get around the copyright restrictions that limited the publishing of the KJV. Were these printers seeking to get some of the profits that could be made from publishing the Bible? From around 1720, some British printers without the royal privilege started publishing editions of the KJV "disguised as commentaries." De Hamel wrote: "It became common practice for printers to include a few skimpy 'notes' simply as a device for evading copyright" (The Book, p. 253). A. S. Herbert cited J. Reeves as writing in the preface of his 1802 Bible about the presence of notes in some editions of the Bible that he had seen that were "placed merely as a cover to piracy of printing upon the patentees, as if fraud could make legal anything that was in itself illegal" (Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions, p. 323). David Cloud acknowledged: “Annotated study Bibles escape the monopoly by being labeled as ‘Bible commentaries’” (Faith, p. 585). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that W. Rayner, one printer of a Bible with notes in the 1700’s, wrote in his preface the following: “the word of God ought not to be the property of any one person, or set of men” and that “the interest of Heaven is no way concerned, whether God’s word be printed by J. Baskett, or W. Rayner” (p. 463).


Other printers managed to avoid the copyright restrictions by publishing "picture" Bibles. Various printers bound engravings, illustrations, or reprints of works by painters with the text of the KJV as a "picture" Bible. De Hamel pointed out that Robert Peake and Francis Ash "made a large profit in reselling Robert Young's Scottish edition" of the A. V. bound with continental engravings of Bible scenes (The Book, p. 250).

A third way that some printers evaded the copyright was by publishing "Family" Bibles. De Hamel claimed: "'Family Bibles' were presented as educational texts and therefore they too evaded the copyright laws" (The Book, p. 254). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that “there appeared from the 1830’s several ‘Family Bibles’ which were also infringements of the monopoly” (p. 469). Why were printers in Great Britain seeking to avoid copyright restrictions if there were none?