Copyrights

[Neto]

A thought I sometimes see when people are talking about various translations is that "The Word of God is free, and should not be charged for". That idea came up on the site where I saw that book about 'the failure of the Amish and Conservative Mennonite dress experiment'. The idea that versions that are available for free on-line are automatically better than those for which you must purchase a copy. There is an uncomfortable angle in that statement, the really close equating of the printed Scripture, any given Bible, with the actual living 'Word of God'. The Scripture also says that 'the workman is worth of his hire', and so I'm not convinced that the publisher is the one who should be giving away copies of the Scripture. Reasonable cost is one thing, but they do need some remuneration, not?

[JohnH]

A thought I sometimes see when people are talking about various translations is that "The Word of God is free, and should not be charged for". That idea came up on the site where I saw that book about 'the failure of the Amish and Conservative Mennonite dress experiment'. The idea that versions that are available for free on-line are automatically better than those for which you must purchase a copy. There is an uncomfortable angle in that statement, the really close equating of the printed Scripture, any given Bible, with the actual living 'Word of God'. The Scripture also says that 'the workman is worth of his hire', and so I'm not convinced that the publisher is the one who should be giving away copies of the Scripture. Reasonable cost is one thing, but they do need some remuneration, not?

Copyrighting the word of God, like the NIV did, seems very offensive to me.

[Neto]

A thought I sometimes see when people are talking about various translations is that "The Word of God is free, and should not be charged for". That idea came up on the site where I saw that book about 'the failure of the Amish and Conservative Mennonite dress experiment'. The idea that versions that are available for free on-line are automatically better than those for which you must purchase a copy. There is an uncomfortable angle in that statement, the really close equating of the printed Scripture, any given Bible, with the actual living 'Word of God'. The Scripture also says that 'the workman is worth of his hire', and so I'm not convinced that the publisher is the one who should be giving away copies of the Scripture. Reasonable cost is one thing, but they do need some remuneration, not?

Copyrighting the word of God, like the NIV did, seems very offensive to me.

In respect to the efforts of the new owners of Zondervan to completely erase the NIV 1984 from all public access, I agree. (I recently read a blog post by a pastor, bemoaning the fact that pastors cannot easily use the NIV 84 text for on-screen sermon presentations, because they have to type it all out manually. As a comparison, a quick info search on 'when the KJV copyright expired' reveals that it never had a modern type copyright, but that while is is in the public domain in North America, there still is a sort of 'Crown copyright' in place for it in England.)

[JohnH]

As a comparison, a quick info search on 'when the KJV copyright expired' reveals that it never had a modern type copyright, but that while is is in the public domain in North America, there still is a sort of 'Crown copyright' in place for it in England.)

I don't support that sort of copyright either.

[Bootstrap]

Copyrighting the word of God, like the NIV did, seems very offensive to me.

Any translation is copyrighted, period. Perhaps you would like different licensing conditions?

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

[Silentreader]

Copyrighting the word of God, like the NIV did, seems very offensive to me.

Any translation is copyrighted, period. Perhaps you would like different licensing conditions?

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

So "Public Domain" is still a form of copyright?

[JohnH]

Copyrighting the word of God, like the NIV did, seems very offensive to me.

Any translation is copyrighted, period. Perhaps you would like different licensing conditions?

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

Yes, I get your pedantic quibbling… I think what we all mean is enforcing a copyright as opposed to a licence like CC0.

[Bootstrap]

Copyrighting the word of God, like the NIV did, seems very offensive to me.

Any translation is copyrighted, period. Perhaps you would like different licensing conditions?

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

So "Public Domain" is still a form of copyright?

No, but it's not even possible to write something and just say that it is public domain, at least in most jurisdictions. A CC0 is the closest you can get.

You can't give something away unless you own it. Copyright governs who owns it. After a copyright expires, it is in the public domain. Until it does, the person who owns it gets to decide what rights, if any, to retain. Only that person (or those persons) can make it freely available.

https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/

The Problem

Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain.

A Solution

CC0 helps solve this problem by giving creators a way to waive all their copyright and related rights in their works to the fullest extent allowed by law. CC0 is a universal instrument that is not adapted to the laws of any particular legal jurisdiction, similar to many open source software licenses. And while no tool, not even CC0, can guarantee a complete relinquishment of all copyright and database rights in every jurisdiction, we believe it provides the best and most complete alternative for contributing a work to the public domain given the many complex and diverse copyright and database systems around the world.

[Bootstrap]

Copyrighting the word of God, like the NIV did, seems very offensive to me.

Any translation is copyrighted, period. Perhaps you would like different licensing conditions?

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

Yes, I get your pedantic quibbling… I think what we all mean is enforcing a copyright as opposed to a licence like CC0.

It's not pedantic quibbling if you actually create materials and want to make them freely available. Only the copyright holder has the right to create a free license. I actually create freely licensed materials, and it's important to understand the law if you want to do that.

[JohnH]

It's not pedantic quibbling if you actually create materials and want to make them freely available. Only the copyright holder has the right to create a free license. I actually create freely licensed materials, and it's important to understand the law if you want to do that.

In the context above it was simple to understand what people were saying. Most people think of a public domain licence or a CC0 licence as saying "he didn't copyright it" - that is, he is not asserting any rights.

I don't think any of us here can claim to be experts in understanding, much less explaining, copyright law.