Copyright

[Southern Comfort]

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.

NT —

(a) You have edited the quote from me above, changing "comes" to "cometh" for some reason.

(b) You have not grasped how copyright law works, I think.

In order to produce a new copyrightable item in law, the modification of an existing copyrighted item must amount to at least a 15% difference.

Now go to your 1937 text and count the number of words: 36
In the 1966 bishops' conferece text, the entire 2nd line is altered: i.e. 10 words have been changed, (Let us ignore the change in capitalisation from "Hosts" to "hosts".) That is a modification of 27.8%. The 1966 text is therefore a new copyright.

Now take the 1966 text: 33 words.
The 1970 ICET text, with the alteration to "hosts" and its entirely different 2nd line, is 8 words or roughly 24% different from 1966, so once again constitutes a new copyright. (It is also roughly 30% different from your 1937 text.)

[musicus]

I do hope our OP (Gwyn) is following all this.

[gwyn]

Musicus pondered:

I do hope our OP (Gwyn) is following all this.

With avidity Musicus, well, I'm giving it my best shot.

I must confess that when I e(i?)nquired I'd envisaged a simple response outlining what text I'd need to add to a simple 24 page (six folded sheets of A4) booklet in order to cover copyright. The exchange is a fascinating one.

There's a font of knowledge in this forum and 'tis a fool indeed who doesn't drink liberally from it.

[Peter]

On the "Liverpool Synod Hymn" thread viewtopic.php?t=2050&p=27482#p27475...

... This tune is normally named KING DIVINE. I don't know of any hymn book that gives the composition date, but if 1933 is correct (Rigby didn't die until 1952) then hymnary.org is wrong in stating that the copyright in it is controlled by Continuum. It became public domain 13 years ago....

... except that, as a later post by SC confirms, copyright lasts for 70 years after the composer's death. According to Laudate, Charles Rigby died in 1962 and it was Patrick Brennan, author of the words "Hail, Reeemer, King divine!", who died in 1952. Thus Continuum do presumably still hold the copyright and the tune won't enter the public domain until 2033.

I've posted this reply here as the "Liverpool Synod Hymn" thread seemed in danger of going off-topic and this one seemed a more appropriate one to add to.

[Southern Comfort]

On the "Liverpool Synod Hymn" thread viewtopic.php?t=2050&p=27482#p27475...

... This tune is normally named KING DIVINE. I don't know of any hymn book that gives the composition date, but if 1933 is correct (Rigby didn't die until 1952) then hymnary.org is wrong in stating that the copyright in it is controlled by Continuum. It became public domain 13 years ago....

... except that, as a later post by SC confirms, copyright lasts for 70 years after the composer's death. According to Laudate, Charles Rigby died in 1962 and it was Patrick Brennan, author of the words "Hail, Reeemer, King divine!", who died in 1952. Thus Continuum do presumably still hold the copyright and the tune won't enter the public domain until 2033.

I've posted this reply here as the "Liverpool Synod Hymn" thread seemed in danger of going off-topic and this one seemed a more appropriate one to add to.

Both Rigby's and Brennan's date of death are open to conjecture! And I apologise for a typo in the post quoted: it should say "public domain 16 years ago", not 13.

Some sources give Rigby as 1901-1962, others as 1901-1952. He is variously described as C. Rigby, C.W. Rigby and Fr Charles Rigby

Patrick Brennan was a Redemptorist (CSsR). Some sources gives his dates as 1877-1952, others as 1877-1951. It appears that 1951 may be correct, and that 1952 is a result of confusion with Rigby's date of death. (Alternatively, giving Rigby a date of death in 1952 may be the result of confusion with Brennan's date of death!)

As far as Continuum's copyright claim is concerned, I believe I am right in saying that they only ever held copyright (as Burns & Oates, later Search Press, taken over by Continuum, which itself was subsequently taken over by Bloomsbury) in Brennan's text, not in Rigby's music.

Whatever the case, it does appear that text may remain in copyright until 2022, and the music as late as 2032 (if Rigby did not die until 1962) unless there is no estate to which royalties are payable. In the case of Brennan, it is to be assumed that Continuum or the Redemptorists would retain an interest. In the case of Rigby, the publication date of 1933 would come into play and the music would be deemed to have been in the public domain since 2003 (under current legislation).

[Nick Baty]

In the case of Rigby, the publication date of 1933 would come into play and the music would be deemed to have been in the public domain since 2003 (under current legislation).

Not 70 years after his death? See attached pdf from British Library website.

[Southern Comfort]

In the case of Rigby, the publication date of 1933 would come into play and the music would be deemed to have been in the public domain since 2003 (under current legislation).

Not 70 years after his death? See attached pdf from British Library website.

Not if there is no longer anyone around to benefit from the copyright. The key word in the document you cited is "usually". That assumes that there is an estate, an executor or descendants. Where none of those obtain, the date of first publication would be the marker, although in practice, of course, if there is no one to receive payments after the death of a composer, the work is effectively in the public domain. I have encountered several cases of this in recent years where all the publisher could say was, in effect, "We know who wrote this, and when, but have failed to track down anyone to pay royalties to".

[Peter]

As far as Continuum's copyright claim is concerned, I believe I am right in saying that they only ever held copyright (as Burns & Oates, later Search Press, taken over by Continuum, which itself was subsequently taken over by Bloomsbury) in Brennan's text, not in Rigby's music.

My copy of Laudate (admittedly not the latest edition) says "Text and music © Burns & Oates..." for hymn number 320.

[Southern Comfort]

Different hymn books, different stories:

Praise the Lord (1967): no copyright acknowledged in either text or music
Parish Hymn Book (1968): copyright in the music (Burns & Oates), but not in the text
Praise the Lord revised (1972): no copyright acknowledged in either text or music
Celebration Hymnal for Everyone (latest revision): copyright in the text (Search Press), but not in the music

This hymn is a hymnologist's nightmare!

[JW]

I was struck by SC's earlier comments about difficulty in tracing descendants of original copyright owners.

Some years ago, I ordered from the British Library a scan of a booklet by a great great uncle of mine. The payment included a copyright fee. Now I'm guessing that the British Library hasn't traced the person who should receive that fee, even though the author had at least one grandchild still living in 2011.

I also wonder about the prevalence of Burns Oates claiming copyright. Did they actually purchase the rights or were they simply administering them on behalf of the actual copyright holder?

These points raise issues for authors and composers working today. If they intend to pass the rights to their descendants, How are composers on this forum planning to ensure that their royalties are received by the proper persons after death?