Copyright and the KJV

It still has the crown equivalent of a copyright. One of my copies has it clearly spelled out.

 

Your link is well written and true. However most of us have known that for years. I was taught in the 5th grade that very fact in history. But today I guess they don't teach much that would touch the Christian faith.

 

All I have to do is look at my wide-margin Oxford KJV - the copyright is very clear there.

 

I am too lazy to scan the copyright and post it here, I have in the past typed it out and have been accused of making it up

It is a very clear copyright, saying that none of the text may be saved or copied by any means without permission of the holder (Oxford Press).

 

Ummm. Think about this. Then think about American copyright law. Even with the new revisions and extensions, the crown copyright is not protected under American law or international law. So the KJV is in the public domain in America and almost everywhere else. That's why you never hear of any copyright lawsuits anywhere over the printing of the KJV.

 

I go to all kinds of Bible classes where they freely use the KJV in the lessons because they claim it isn't copyrighted.

 

I have run across the argument that a copyright placed on a bible somehow makes it invalid...although that proves it is of man and not God.

I've never understood the argument.

1) The King James version by title, has a man's name and even a man's authorization of scripture.

2) If copyrights truly mean this, then the crown copyright (or whatever it is called) would make the KJV invalid as well.

3) Without a copyright, it is possible that I could publish a bible with Humpty Dumpty included as Psalm 151, label it the King James Version and freely distribute it. I know that's extreme, but given the sheer number of KJV printers, would the lack of an enforcible copyright make it more open to hidden changes?

I think the argument is one of those things that might get an AMEN in a sermon, but doesn't really have a lot of logic behind it.

 

1. Yes. Usually heard it from an AMERICAN speaking from an American's perspective and context.

2. Yes. See above.

3. Just for the sake of additional info; this is why we have a plethora of KJV Bibles published freely in this country with NO infringement on copyright law by such diverse publishers as the giant Thomas-Nelson to the independant Church publishers.

(BTW: My grandfather's preaching Bible is an Oxford KJ published prior to 1931 and has no copyright nor any allusions to the Crown of England and is simply noted "Appointed to be read in churches")

 

"Cum Priviligio", literally, "with privilege", is the old British copyright mark. This copyright on the KJV was given by King james to Sir robert barker, the royal printer at that time. His family held it for over a hundred years. In fact, Barker's father had been given exclusive printing privileges for ALL English-language Bibles made in the British Empire in 1577 until the family gave it up in 1709.

The CURRENT copyright holders are the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode.

The Collins Co. is now HARPER COLLINS, owned by Rupert Murdoch, so no one has any right to denounce Zondervan because of Murdoch.

Wanna know more about British copyrights? Encyclopaedia Britannica has an excellent article about them.

Those who holler about the copyrights in newer BVs are apparently quite ignorant of the "fair use" laws which allow a publication to be copied in part for the purpose of fulfilling its intended use. School textbooks are all copyrighted, but a teacher or student may freely copy from them for educational purposes, as being an educational tool is their intended use. Same with a Bible. its intended use is as Holy Writ, to be preached from & taught to bible students. The law is quite liberal inallowing copying from a copyrighted Bible. The main violation of copyright law as applied to Bibles is MAKING/SELLING COPIES FOR PROFIT, or ALTERING THEM & selling them as authentic. However, they can be freely used for anything pertaining to worship, and teaching from them.

Personally, I'm GLAD to have copyrighted Bible versions, including the KJV, because I then know I have an authentic copy of that version.

 

There's a reason translations are protected by their owners, and while it may often have to do with money, it also has to do with protecting the integrity of the translation from unauthorized changes.

 

The argument is that men are driven by profits (money).

Sorry Lagardo, but the 1611 is not entitled "King James", but rather, it simply has Holy Bible on the title page. There is no evidence that King James ever officially endorsed the edition for 'authorized' use in the Anglican churches after its completion. It commonly gets his name attached due to the dedication to the King written by the revisiors (following the title page); a wise move on their part since it had been less than 100 years since translators had been burned at the stake.

Bibles had been getting 'copyright' protection before the KJV. See this link for some more info--

http://www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-40407.html

 

Yes, I know the argument...by not understanding it, I meant that it is not a logical one.

I have no idea what you are apologizing for, but I forgive you. :thumbs:

A fact which further negates the argument that the KJV is superior because it doen't have a US copyright.