Copyright

[contrabordun]

Yes. The reason is that you can't charge royalties on something to which you don't own the copyright.

Well, not without committing fraud, anyway.

[Nick Baty]

Well, I'm only quoting ICEL. And I can't see how anyone could possibly object to an agency of the English-speaking bishops ensuring, as far as they can, that publishers print the correct text.

As I said earlier, ICEL couldn't give two hoots if it's acknowledged for the Sanctus – but if you want its permission to reproduce its Memorial Acclamations then you'll have to have the exact text of the Sanctus too.

[Peter Jones]

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.

ICEL cannot claim copyright in civil law over texts where there are "identical translations in the public domain". For readers who have purchased the Decani Collection Glory to God you will see there is careful distinction made in the copyright notices between ICEL texts and other Missal texts. Where there is no copyright assigned to a text, there is no copyright notice. It's that simple.
As editor of the collection, I made sure that all copyright notices were correct and every page was checked by someone in Washington.

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

This is the official wording, including the chants if you reproduce the music:

Excerpts from the English translation and chants of The Roman Missal © 2010 International Commission
on English in the Liturgy Corporation. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

If you feel the need also to acknowledge the texts in the public domain, then I suggest that the titles should be in English, not Greek or Latin, for these are English texts.
Perhaps:
Texts of the Lord, have mercy; Holy; Our Father; and Lamb of God - public domain.

The matter of how a Bishops' Conference and ICEL exercise oversight of these Missal texts when used by composers and publishers is a separate concern from that of copyright.

[Nick Baty]

The matter of how a Bishops' Conference and ICEL exercise oversight of how these Missal texts are used by composers and publishers...

Which is what ICEL seeks to do. But this debate is becoming as irritating and as pointless as an edition of The Daily Mail.
Back to Gwyn's question: ICEL won't care what you do as long as you don't use (even) public domain translations in the same edition as unauthorised texts. It's trying to ensure we use the correct translation of Roman Missal. Quite shocking really!

[Peter Jones]

ICEL won't care what you do as long as you don't use (even) public domain translations in the same edition as unauthorised texts.

I'm sorry, I am not following you. Gwyn is asking about a service booklet containing the Missal texts, isn't he? What unauthorised texts are you talking about?
I myself will soon have "cobbled together" a one-time-use Funeral Mass booklet for later this week. The hymns/songs will have their copyrights acknowledged alongside
the ICEL Mass texts. However, I will not be making the non-ICEL, public domain acknowledgements I have suggested above.

[Nick Baty]

Just trying to say that ICEL doesn't care if you do or don't acknowledge them for Holy/Agnus. They only use their oomph if you include these texts in the same publication as unauthorised texts (eg Israeli Mass). Not worth getting so *beep* about ICEL. Gwyn's service sheet could end up with more copyright information than service text. And why does *beep* get bleeped?

[NorthernTenor]

I think the problem is one terms, seasoned with a dash of wishful thinking.

ICEL has copyright over English editions of the Roman Missal and other liturgical books, just as the Vatican has copyright over the Latin originals. Quite separately, both also have copyright over texts included in those publications that fall within the scope of copyright rules. Neither has copyright over such texts where they are in the public domain.

So: the Vatican and ICEL will, I hope, exercise their copyrights in order to protect the integrity of liturgical books and new texts. They might as well whistle in the wind as attempt to exercise it over texts they do not own; far better to persuade Bishops to have their parishes sing what’s written, rather than alternative versions and texts.

The issue is further complicated by financial interest. There is no necessary connection between the protection of textual integrity and charging publishers for use of texts; that is merely a result of ICEL’s funding method. So long as that depends on income from copyrights, so will ICEL be tempted to give the impression it has copyright over texts that are in the public domain. Worse, it is likely to become a self-perpetuating, semi-independent bureaucracy, whose main concern becomes its own comfort and survival. This seems to be a lesson the Church has to rediscover in every age.

This is not to cast aspersions on Monsignor Andrew Wadsworth, ICEL’s present Executive Director, who is a very capable priest of integrity and vision who inherited the funding model. Nor is it likely that the Bishops’ conferences would stump up directly, though that would focus minds wonderfully on ICEL’s continuing operations. Rather, it is to recognise that money is the root of all evil; and that ecclesiastical organisations must guard against its damaging effects like the very devil.

[Southern Comfort]

A number of observations:

(a) Nick — ICEL's copyright on the entire Missal is a compilation copyright. It does not necessarily mean that ICEL owns or indeed controls all the material therein, in the same way that a hymn book can be "Compilation © Whichever Publisher" but the publisher does not own or control all the texts and music in it.

(b) Nick, again — ICEL is not interested in knowing what other texts you are using. When you apply to it for permission, you simply list the ICEL copyright texts that you want to use. (Often they do not even require to see proofs.) End of story. It's the Liturgy Office that it is interested in what other texts you are using, and insists on seeing everything.

(c) Everyone — the text of the Holy, holy is not actually in the public domain at all. The copyright notice should read:

Text copyright © 1970, International Consultation on English Texts and © 1988, English Language Liturgical Consultation, alt.

For practical purposes it is in the public domain because ICET/ELLC make it available free of charge to any user, provided that an appropriate copyright acknowledgement is made.
The current ICEL Order of Mass changed "power and might" to "hosts". This one-word difference from the previous text is not enough to create a new copyright item.

(d) The texts Lord, have mercy [etc] and the Our Father are in the public domain. They are traditional and anonymous.

(e) The text of the Lamb of God is in fact the 1969 ICEL translation, but it is treated as being in the public domain because that translation itself was so similar to the traditional English translation used up to that time that it could not be said to have created a new copyright item.

[Nick Baty]

Nick, again — ICEL is not interested in knowing what other texts you are using.

That is contrary to my experience because, as they told me at the time, they were ensuring that no unauthorised translations, paraphrases etc were being used. I might have imagined it – but, if so, I also imagined the emails – and they look real enough.

[NorthernTenor]

Nick, again — ICEL is not interested in knowing what other texts you are using.

That is contrary to my experience because, as they told me at the time, they were ensuring that no unauthorised translations, paraphrases etc were being used. I might have imagined it – but, if so, I also imagined the emails – and they look real enough.

What they are interested and wish to encourage as good practice is not identical with the scope of their copyright.

[NorthernTenor]

The current ICEL Order of Mass changed "power and might" to "hosts". This one-word difference from the previous text is not enough to create a new copyright item.

Interestingly, this brought it into conformity with traditional translations of the Sanctus/Benedictus, and therefore out of scope of the ICET/ELLC copyright (putting aside the question as to whether the substitution of '"power and might" for "hosts" warranted that copyright claim in the first place).

[Peter Jones]

The current ICEL Order of Mass changed "power and might" to "hosts". This one-word difference from the previous text is not enough to create a new copyright item.

Interestingly, this brought it into conformity with traditional translations of the Sanctus/Benedictus, and therefore out of scope of the ICET/ELLC copyright (putting aside the question as to whether the substitution of '"power and might" for "hosts" warranted that copyright claim in the first place).

I tend to agree with you there NT. On SC's logic, a change of Sabaoth to "power and might" (based not on the liturgical text from Isaiah but on the text in Rev 4:8) and a change from "thy" to "your" does not seem enough to create a new copyright item either.

[Southern Comfort]

The current ICEL Order of Mass changed "power and might" to "hosts". This one-word difference from the previous text is not enough to create a new copyright item.

Interestingly, this brought it into conformity with traditional translations of the Sanctus/Benedictus, and therefore out of scope of the ICET/ELLC copyright (putting aside the question as to whether the substitution of '"power and might" for "hosts" warranted that copyright claim in the first place).

For information:—

Before the "God of power and might" ICET version, the translation used in these islands from 1966 to 1972 ran:

Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts.
Your glory fills all heaven and earth.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

That translation, with its interesting second line, was the copyright of the Bishops' Conferences of the British Isles.

Prior to that, translations used the expression "Lord God of Sabaoth" and referred to "thy glory" and "he that cometh". They were not used liturgically in the Catholic Church.

Incidentally, if the new translation were to follow the stipulations of Liturgiam Authenticam more exactly, the second line ought to read
Full are the heavens and the earth of your glory.

[NorthernTenor]

Before the "God of power and might" ICET version, the translation used in these islands from 1966 to 1972 ran:

Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts.
Your glory fills all heaven and earth.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

That translation, with its interesting second line, was the copyright of the Bishops' Conferences of the British Isles.

Prior to that, translations used the expression "Lord God of Sabaoth" and referred to "thy glory" and "he that cometh"

The 1937 Lasance Missal (a digital copy of which is kindly hosted by our friend Jeffrey Ostrowski) has a parallel translation which is substantially the same as that to which our Bishops claimed copyright 30 years later:

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts.
The heavens and the earth are full of Thy glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

Perhaps one lesson to be learned from this is that the Church should steer clear of copyright, except the compilation kind on liturgical books. If it wishes to ensure the black is read and sung that should be a matter of formation, good practice and ecclesiastical discipline, not civil litigation and copyright-farming.

[NorthernTenor]

Another option, which retains recourse to civil action as a last resort, is to release the texts under a Commons licence (as the SSG has recently done with Processional texts). That encourages dissemination and separates textual integrity from income generation.