Copyright Permission

[Psalm Project]

So, we fit the psalms with power steering and electric windows (and satnav) - to use that analogy... and they may become 'better'
Surely, this removes all the effort?
The Anglia was a classic! Never had one - only remember them! Classics always command respect!
Funny you should mention cars... a local organist over here (a really good FRCO) still has a 1970-something Morris Minor station wagon... you know the ones... wooden mouldings on the outside... It belches white smoke like there was no tomorrow! He loves it! He swears by it... swear being the operative word, I think!

[Southern Comfort]

So, we fit the psalms with power steering and electric windows (and satnav)

And set the whole thing to variants on "She'll be coming round the mountain when she comes". What a brilliant idea!

[NorthernTenor]

Here is a link to a notice from GIA detailing licensing conditions for the new Grail translation.

[Psalm Project]

This puts a relatively clearer complexion on matters - or at least it kicks the ball into the ballpark!
It will provide an interesting conversation when it comes to working out a final price!
Hmmm... there's much to be said for paraphrasing and personal interpretations of psalms! 'Course, that's what everyone else does! Silly me for sticking to the scriptures ...

[NorthernTenor]

This puts a relatively clearer complexion on matters - or at least it kicks the ball into the ballpark!
It will provide an interesting conversation when it comes to working out a final price!
Hmmm... there's much to be said for paraphrasing and personal interpretations of psalms! 'Course, that's what everyone else does! Silly me for sticking to the scriptures ...

Silly bishops for putting a key part of our liturgy into the hands of commercial copyright-harvesters.

Jeffrey Tucker of the CMAA/NLM has been in correspondence with both GIA and ICEL over the ways in which the copyright on translations of liturgical texts is used. His latest view is that GIA will permit free posting of Grail psalm settings on the interweb, whereas anyone who wants to compete with them by publishing printed versions for sale will have to pay unspecified royalties, to be determined by GIA (this seems to be born out by GIA's notice, though I'm no lawyer). The monstrous nature of the "whereas" aside, the digital concession gives a marvellous opportunity to those who want to contribute music to the Church, and who aren't bothered about making money from it. The costs would be negligable compared with the printing and distribution of psalm-books. And if usage took off, it might justify the expense of publishing properly engraved books, printed on durable material of a convenient size.

[Southern Comfort]

Silly bishops for putting a key part of our liturgy into the hands of commercial copyright-harvesters.

Nothing to do with the bishops at all. They have no control over the copyright of translations. In this instance, the Grail, Conception Abbey, Missouri and GIA have agreed to this arrangement. GIA are actually being a heck of a lot more reasonable than most publishers (and no, I won't mention the names of the worst money-grabbing firms ─ you all know who they are).

Jeffrey Tucker of the CMAA/NLM has been in correspondence with both GIA and ICEL over the ways in which the copyright on translations of liturgical texts is used. His latest view is that GIA will permit free posting of Grail psalm settings on the interweb, whereas anyone who wants to compete with them by publishing printed versions for sale will have to pay unspecified royalties, to be determined by GIA (this seems to be born out by GIA's notice, though I'm no lawyer). The monstrous nature of the "whereas" aside, the digital concession gives a marvellous opportunity to those who want to contribute music to the Church, and who aren't bothered about making money from it. The costs would be negligable compared with the printing and distribution of psalm-books. And if usage took off, it might justify the expense of publishing properly engraved books, printed on durable material of a convenient size.

I think you'll find that the GIA's royalty stipulation for printed versions that are sold will the same as I mention above ─ i.e. pro rata on a 10% royalty basis. In other words, if you want to sell your stuff, it won't be "unspecified royalties" but 4% (perhaps + 1% if the response is also from Grail) of the retail selling price. In other words, the same arrangement as has been the case for upmteen years.

People who are trying to paint GIA as the Big Bad Wolf are completely up the wrong alley here. Just thank your lucky stars that another US liturgical music publisher wasn't entrusted with administering these texts.

[Nick Baty]

And, don't forget, GIA will be paying royalties to the translators.
They, like us, need to eat.

[JW]

It is clear from this thread and others that composers have an issue with paying to set sacred texts - something which the likes of Palestrina, Mozart, Faure and Britten never had to do. Pre Vatican 2, the sacred texts used in the Ordinary of the Mass or in Scripture (Vulgate) have been in the Public Domain.

Following the use of the vernacular, translations have been made available for priests and people to use in worship - presumably freely as far as their oral use is concerned - or are we to be charged for saying the Mass responses or quoting Scripture? ICEL and the Grail, have, are very clear that Copyright Law applies to reproduction of the texts in print, for example, Bishop Roche's letter complaining to The Tablet a couple of years ago when they published some of the latest translations that were under consideration.

Why Is this paying for what is spiritual not Simony? Please see this recent article for a more in-depth consideration.

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/tucker/05372.html

Answers on a postcard, please!

[Psalm Project]

Let's skip the postcard!!!

Extract for the linked article above...
"As applied to the Mass, this might mean that it is perfectly acceptable to charge for hymn books, missalettes, prayer books, and the like. Compositions can carry a copyright, as can collections of homilies and instruction books. A thriving marketplace for Church goods and publications is a welcome thing. But the ritual text itself? This seems to be a clear case of something that must be free.

Every other religion seems to understand this. What has gone wrong in the Catholic Church that this problem has been allowed to fester uncorrected? Who will stand up and say that this is wrong and demand a change?

I've no problem making a stink about it!
What an enlightening piece! This bag of worms needs to be opened and dealt with. I am one of those small (very small) self-publishers mentioned.
Can I state immediately that I have not had a response - Aye or Nae would do! - it may work out to my satisfaction yet, hopefully!
I must admit that the conundrum of copyright in relation to the Grail psalm texts is both fascinating and annoying. I have clearly heard all that has been said thus far! No, of course I do not want Mr. Litigation banging on my door. But, something deep within me has a problem with having to pay for texts which are used ritually week-in week-out at mass. As the mentioned article notes - this is not Harry Potter stuff!
I feel (rightly or wrongly) 'entitled' to use those texts - They are what are spoken from the ambo each weekend.
The 'vibe' I am getting from various responses (almost a pun!) is not entirely positive - a little concerning though.
I believe that the texts of the psalms, which I am currently using, should be freely available.
I'll be posting any response I receive from the copyright holders! Watch this space.

[Nick Baty]

I believe that the texts of the psalms, which I am currently using, should be freely available. I'll be posting any response I receive from the copyright holders! Watch this space

While one understands your frustration, if the translation was freely available, how would the publishers pay the translators – to say nothing of the typesetters, printers, marketeers, admin staff, packing department etc etc.

If you're so concerned about this, use a copyright-free translation.

I know I keep knocking you down on this one but just because one believes something should be freely available doesn't make it so. I think your salary should be freely available to me but it would not be legally or morally justifiable for me to take it without your agreement.

[Psalm Project]

Nick,
Thank you once again for your argument
You did not work in this area in a past life by any chance?
What it has stimulated, however, is the issue of copyright in relation to my own published works (original texts) and the amount of technical illegal copying I am aware of.
I'll hold tough for another week and see what transpires. The material of this publication is valid and is in regular use by my congregation. That, in itself, poses no problem.
Hopefully, this week will shed a bit of light on progression - I'll keep you posted.

[Nick Baty]

You did not work in this area in a past life by any chance?

And in the present one: I've worked in the media (mostly newspapers and TV) most of my life and now lecture in journalism.

I really wouldn't hang fire for another week – I'd get on the phone and hassle them. Remember, you can't go ahead without their agreement so get on the phone and hustle. The book industry moves far more slowly than the newspaper world. They could take ages. And, another thought, if your contact has been only by email, can you be certain they've received it? Things do go stray sometimes.

[Psalm Project]

aaah... The Thick Plottens - as they say!

Thank you for all your insightful comments. I do appreciate it.
I am hopeful and confident that there will not be a problem at the end of the day. The material is good quality (no diddley-i stuff here) and it is in regular use - feedback over the past four years (the trial period!) is extremely positive.
I am willing to pay a fee for use - it has the 100% support of my church so, unless there is another issue, I cannot see that there should be a problem. Other publishers have secured permission using precisely the same texts.
I'll try the number you mentioned in a seperate thread.
Thanks again

[Nick Baty]

Well do let us know how it goes.
But, as a matter of interest, what if they say no?

[Psalm Project]

Let's keep the chin up on this one!
Well, if permission was previously granted to others - which it was, I cannot see why I might be treated any differently.
If I am willing to pay a fee, what other reason could there be for refusal?
What purpose would it serve to refuse? Everyone would lose, surely?
There would need to be a convincing and compelling reason for refusal otherwise it could be viewed as discrimination... but we are thinking too far ahead now!
I tried the number you suggested and had a brief chat with a specific person. He is to get back today with clarification. Information did not seem to be available to hand when I called.

Plan B will not be revealed yet!