ICEL moving the copyright goal posts?

[FrGareth]

Our parish's (Southwark) diocesan levy last year seems to have been about 1/3rd of the total collection plus Gift Aid... I'm absolutely gobsmacked at how much the diocese is taking and I have never seen their accounts. A Google search will give me CAFOD's annual report and accounts. Anyone know where diocesan accounts are available to us poor parishoners...?

Voila! http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Sc ... 31_e_c.pdf

(and now back to the topic)

[musicus]

Oh good - we haven't been OT since the top of page 2.

(Welcome back, Father Gareth!)

[gwyn]

(Welcome back, Father Gareth!)

Indeedy.
Croeso 'nol.

[Nick Baty]

I wonder if the person who first posted the news here about ICEL's stance regarding the Sanctus would care to give chapter and verse once again? A search of the forum has not yet uncovered the post.

Not sure if this answers your question, SC, but I have been told today by an ICEL rep that it does not charge royalties for the Kyrie, Sanctus, Lord's Prayer, or Agnus Dei "because they are very similar or identical to translations in the public domain".

And they're pretty generous towards small, kitchen-table publishers, charging zilch for the first 500 copies sold and a flat fee thereafter.

Perhaps ICEL is not quite the ogre we've previously thought.

[HallamPhil]

This is great news since I have orders for 499! (Not)

[JW]

Not sure if this answers your question, SC, but I have been told today by an ICEL rep that it does not charge royalties for the Kyrie, Sanctus, Lord's Prayer, or Agnus Dei "because they are very similar or identical to translations in the public domain".

And they're pretty generous towards small, kitchen-table publishers, charging zilch for the first 500 copies sold and a flat fee thereafter.

Perhaps ICEL is not quite the ogre we've previously thought.

Nick, I appreciate that ICEL is generous towards small scale publishers but, IMHO, there's a difference between not charging royalties and admitting that a text isn't ICEL's copyright but is in the public domain. If I were to set a new version of the 'Tantum Ergo' in Latin and change a couple of words in the process (e.g. Tantum quoque sacramentum, veneremur cernui), I can't then claim copyright over that text.

The 'Guide for Composers' implies that the Kyrie etc. texts are in the public domain but your quote above implies that these specific texts are considered to be copyright although ICEL will not charge royalties. I would argue that ICEL have no rights whatsoever in the particular texts quoted and that it is cheeky to pretend they have.

If ICEL want to ensure that no liberties are taken with the text, they have to rely on the various Bishops' conferences' vetting procedures. Even where the texts are misused or abused, e.g. by a Satanist sect, they would not (IMHO) succeed in a court case against the sect for using these texts without permission.

[Nick Baty]

I don't know enough about the history of the translation to know who owns what – SC has given us quite a bit of info on this here and elsewhere. But as ICEL is not charging anything for those texts held to be in the public domain is there really anything to grumble about? And when they do charge it's in fractions of pennies.

I have no reason to be particularly pro- or anti-ICEL. But I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about.

[Southern Comfort]

I don't know enough about the history of the translation to know who owns what – SC has given us quite a bit of info on this here and elsewhere. But as ICEL is not charging anything for those texts held to be in the public domain is there really anything to grumble about? And when they do charge it's in fractions of pennies.

I have no reason to be particularly pro- or anti-ICEL. But I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about.

I think the issue is that in this instance, though they may not be charging for its use, they are trying to force a publisher to print an ICEL copyright notice for a text that they don't own and have no right to control.

[NorthernTenor]

I don't know enough about the history of the translation to know who owns what – SC has given us quite a bit of info on this here and elsewhere. But as ICEL is not charging anything for those texts held to be in the public domain is there really anything to grumble about? And when they do charge it's in fractions of pennies.

I have no reason to be particularly pro- or anti-ICEL. But I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about.

I think the issue is that in this instance, though they may not be charging for its use, they are trying to force a publisher to print an ICEL copyright notice for a text that they don't own and have no right to control.

There is also the problem that while ICEL might not charge anything or much now, there is no guarantee this will remain so (though I expect it will as long as Msgr. Wadsworth is in control, at least). Nor is there any guarantee that a future regime won't employ the copyright to restrict or interfere with publication on grounds other than textual felicity. After all, we already have the example of the BCEW's Composers Panel, who seem happy to go beyond the simple business of ensuring textual felicity.

[Nick Baty]

I think the issue is that in this instance, though they may not be charging for its use, they are trying to force a publisher to print an ICEL copyright notice for a text that they don't own and have no right to control.

Or do they? Doesn't ICEL have overall responsibility for the English translation of the Missal. By this I mean, it's not just about who translated which texts but about ensuring that the official texts are used.

I can't really imagine ICEL chasing someone for using Lamb of God. But, perhaps, they (or the local bishops' conference) could be on the backs of someone who's using an altered version in an otherwise approved setting.

Just playing devil's advocate here, simply because such things interest me.

I believe the Holy See still has copyright of the Latin texts and charges for their use. I presume this does not include the Gloria and Sanctus or Mozart will owe an awful lot in back payments!

[HallamPhil]

It does seem to be very acceptable for some on this forum to blow a gasket using as emotive a linguistic code as they can summon.

For my own part, I'd like to place on record that I have found the Bishops' Panel a useful process and that the comments I received have been very helpful and appropriate. I never imagined I would need it, but perhaps I need to go on a self-assertiveness course to develop the bombastic nature some here are demonstrating.

[contrabordun]

They may have any such rights under Canon Law, but copyright is enforceable only in the Civil courts.
So logically, (but IANAL) if ICEL didn't write the original and haven't been assigned the copyright, then they're either ignorant, or worse.

[Nick Baty]

We're talking about ICEL as though it's some evil, external force. It is, in fact, the bishops of the English-speaking world working together to ensure the integrity of the English texts – as they are asked to do by the Holy See.

I don't much like the new texts but as a parish musician there's not much I can do but get on with it.

Surely, the only people who will complain about having to use the official texts are those who wish to do otherwise. And the only people who can complain about ICEL charging for the texts are the large publishers who will make money from selling those texts – whether as musical settings or as Missals.

When your parish spends around £130 on a new altar missal, just 10% will go to ICEL so it's actually the publishers who make the biggest profit.

[Southern Comfort]

Nick,

If you knew the very chequered history of ICEL, you wouldn't be viewing them as "Well, I can't see anything wrong with them: they've always been OK with me". The canvas is much, much broader, and much, much darker in places. Although things now seem a lot better than they once were, the heydays of malfeasance in the late 60s and early 70s still linger in the memory and once in a while it looks as if they are returning to them. I could tell you stories that would make your hair curl.

This thread started because an American publisher wrote to me saying surely ICEL have renounced their copyright claim to the Holy, holy? And yet they are telling me I have to put an ICEL © notice next to my music settings of this text. That demand may have been due to clerical error, but there is such a history of carryings-on, especially in ICEL's early days, that people rightly remain suspicious.

It's not the English-speaking bishops, as you (I think naively) suggest, it's a small administrative staff in Washington DC who make all the running. I think Andrew Wadsworth is a good man, but he may not know everything that his staff get up to. And I'm sure he doesn't know some of the very sordid history of days gone by.

[Nick Baty]

I do understand where you are coming from, SC, and I do know that the Washington HQ is a small group. But you're making yourself sound old with "the heydays of malfeasance" – great phrase – of days gone by! Of course in those days ICEL will have been a new body working with a new concept and was, doubtless, suspicious of everything and everybody.

(By the way, who did the first translation into English (65/67?) – am I right in thinking ICEL's first attempt was the 1973 Missal? Or did they do the first one and then revise it?)

However, I'm interested in the tale of your American publisher. Over here, nobody would be publishing a solus Sanctus but would be presenting a set of acclamations. "Excerpts from the English translation of The Roman Missal © 2010 ICEL" is less specific in this case.

And isn't there a case for claiming copyright on a collection? Otherwise, how does the Holy See manage to claim copyright over the whole Missale Romanum when so much of it has been in the public domain for so long?