Copyright

[gwyn]

I've cobbled together a parish booklet containing the Ordinary of the New Mass translation.

What should the copyright notice state?

Gwyn.

[musicus]

Gwyn, I think you will find all that you need to know, including the correct form of words, here: http://www.icelweb.org/copyright.htm

There is a selection of variously formatted PDFs of the Order of Mass, free to download and use, here: http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Missal/Text/index.shtml

[Peter]

... feet to download and use ...

Is this an example of a Moderator putting his foot down?

[NorthernTenor]

Ours' says: Text and music from the 2010 ICEL translation of the Roman Missal. Copyright ICEL where not in the public domain.

The second sentence is desirable to avoid the reasonable inference from the suggested forms that ICEL has copyright over it all. I'm sure this impression is accidental, and that ICEL would be horrified at the suggestion it was otherwise.

[musicus]

... feet to download and use ...

Is this an example of a Moderator putting his foot down?

Very good!

(I've fixed it now.)

[Dom Perignon]

Just to be clear, consent is given for royalty-free use of copyright texts for services booklets and the like conditional upon the appropriate notice being given, details of which are on the link above. NT's notice does not, technically, meet that requirement, and so the use is in breach of copyright. The 'public domain' wording is completely incorrect, I'm afraid - that expression simply means that the item is no longer governed by any confidentiality restriction. It has nothing to do with copyright. Even the copyright text is now 'in the public domain', but it is still copyright.

What is the point of adding anything? If it is copyright, you need the appropriate notice. If it is not copyright, you don't need to say anything. If you feel that you must say something, how about "...those parts of the text of the Mass that are copyright are printed with the permission of...".

[contrabordun]

Sorry, that's simply wrong.

The expression "in the public domain" in the context of copyright has a well understood and widely used meaning which is nothing to do with confidentiality, and which means simply that the texts are freely available for reuse (and usually for editing) without application to the owner of the copyright or payment of a fee.

It is used to cover both the cases where copyright has expired (eg author died >70 years ago) and where the copyright owner so licenses the works (eg via one of the various Creative Commons licences, such as applies to editorial rights (and creative rights in the case of living composers) over works published on cpdl)

Hence NT's distinction is valid and correct. And, as has been pointed out here before, ICEL do act as though they are the rights holders in regard to certain texts in which they are in fact not, so there is justification for making the distinction.

[NorthernTenor]

Just to be clear, consent is given for royalty-free use of copyright texts for services booklets and the like conditional upon the appropriate notice being given, details of which are on the link above. NT's notice does not, technically, meet that requirement, and so the use is in breach of copyright. The 'public domain' wording is completely incorrect, I'm afraid - that expression simply means that the item is no longer governed by any confidentiality restriction. It has nothing to do with copyright. Even the copyright text is now 'in the public domain', but it is still copyright.

That isn’t so, Dom Perignon. In discussion of copyright, “Public Domain” is used of works over which no-one has ownership rights under law (copyright). The concept goes back to the 18th century (the century which saw the first developments in copyright law), and the term itself came into use in the 19th.

You will see it used in this way in Appendix 3 – Copyright Information of the Liturgy Office’s Composers’ Guide, which acknowledges that ICEL does not have copyright over the entire text of the 2010 translation, and specifically mentions the translations of the Kyrie, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei in this respect.

What is the point of adding anything? If it is copyright, you need the appropriate notice. If it is not copyright, you don't need to say anything. If you feel that you must say something, how about "...those parts of the text of the Mass that are copyright are printed with the permission of...".

The point is to avoid the common (and perfectly understandable) confusion of which your comments are an example, DP. This is especially important given ICEL's track record of acting as if it has ownership of property to which it has no right in law.

Ian Williams

[gwyn]

Thanks everyone.
We'll prob go for N.T.'s structure:

Text and music from the 2010 ICEL translation of the Roman Missal. Copyright ICEL where not in the public domain.

unless, of course, you've copyrighted it N.T..

[NorthernTenor]

Thanks everyone.
We'll prob go for N.T.'s structure:

Text and music from the 2010 ICEL translation of the Roman Missal. Copyright ICEL where not in the public domain.

unless, of course, you've copyrighted it N.T..

[NorthernTenor]

This copyright issue, of course, will be of interest to composers and publishers who become frustrated with the way Permission to Publish has been implemented in England & Wales, as in: if you feel you’re being treated in an unreasonable or laggardly way over your textually faithful setting of a public domain text, you don’t have to be – it’s entirely up to you.

[Nick Baty]

What should the copyright notice state?

The simplest thing, Gwyn, is to attribute the whole lot to ICEL. Apart from being shorter, it's simpler. The Corporation has copyright over the entire English translation of the new Roman Missal, except for national propers and adaptations.

ICEL accepts that it the Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei and Our Father are identical to translations in the public domain and that's why it does not charge royaltes on these items.

At the same time, however, ICEL maintains control of the text for the purposes of mandating use of the official text in publications. For example, I recently saw a set of acclamations which uses the new text Sanctus paired with an old text memorial acclamation. In cases like this, ICEL has the power to step in and require the official text to be used – unless the local bishops' conference gets there first.

That's why the England & Wales Permission to Publish Panel is checking that, for example, the Sanctus is being published with correct versions of all three memorial acclamations. (And, yes, that's a pain for those of us who find it a joy to set MA3 but struggle with MA1 and MA2.)

If you don't want to attribute the Sanctus or Agnus to ICEL they really won't make a fuss. But if you were to publish a differing version (eg: "Jesus, Lamb of God...") in the same document, then ICEL would be able to step in and insist that the correct texts are used. That's why new collections need an Imprimatur. Bizarrely, if your publication contains no official texts then you can avoid the Imprimatur altogether.

Contrary to the conspiracy theories, ICEL maintains ownership of the complete Missal so it can maintain the integrity of the official translations in published works.

[Dom Perignon]

Mea culpa! I was thinking of the expression in entirely the wrong context. Thanks to those who corrected me. However I still don't think that NT's formula satisfies the conditions that are necessary for the release to be given in respect of those items that are copyright.

[contrabordun]

ICEL accepts that it the Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei and Our Father are identical to translations in the public domain and that's why it does not charge royaltes on these items.

Nick, that's bonkers.

"Paul Hodgetts accepts that his recent setting of the Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei and Our Father is identical to Nick Baty's, and that's why he does not charge royalties on those items?"

However I still don't think that NT's formula satisfies the conditions that are necessary for the release to be given in respect of those items that are copyright.

I think you're right. Somewhat ironically, the linked page doesn't specify an exact required wording, just what the text should contain. I think NT needs an extra "All rights reserved" in there to be on the safe side.

[Nick Baty]

So is there another reason that ICEL doesn't charge royalties on these texts?