Copyright Question

[J. Jump]

Would it be a violation of copyright to produce an audio version of the NASB Bible and give copies of it to folks that wanted copies. The key word being give not sell?

 

[EdSutton]

Would it be a violation of copyright to produce an audio version of the NASB Bible and give copies of it to folks that wanted copies. The key word being give not sell?

The NASB probably has something in the first few pages about how much can be reproduced, or for what purpose, if any, one can reproduce it. If not, contact the Lockman Foundation. I'm sure they would give you the details, if one were to ask. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[Deacon]

THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION
Copyright information:

The text of the New American Standard Bible® may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of The Lockman Foundation, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 25% of the total work in which they are quoted.

Pretty standard stuff there.

Quoting it in a audio version is allowed under the above stipulations.

Rob

 

[J. Jump]

Thanks gentlemen.

 

[AresMan]

Copyright clauses such as these are one reason why I prefer the KJV (I use both 1611 and 1769). I prefer not to feel encumbered when I spread God's word.

 

[EdSutton]

Copyright clauses such as these are one reason why I prefer the KJV (I use both 1611 and 1769). I prefer not to feel encumbered when I spread God's word.

Let me see if I got this right!

So it is morally, you understand, OK to ignore ('cause I wouldn't want to be "encumbered") the older copyright laws of the United Kingdom, and the 'English crown', that are BTW, still "on the books", regardless that some in the US, over time got around this by printing their own 'bootlegged' copies of some edition of the A.V.; but it is not morally OK, not to mention the legality issue, to 'violate' the newer copyright laws of the United States, UK, etc., with such as the NIV, NKJV, NASB, and uh - and uh... oh yeah, nevermind that the Darby and/or the ASV, to name two are NOT now limited by any copyright laws and fully in the public domain, and ..uh...?

And what did I just miss here?

Ed

P.S. Yeah I did just say that!

 

[Ed Edwards]

The first rule of copyright lawsuits (indeed, the first
law of suing) is:

Sue someone with money.

Of course, if you have enough money to reproduce
sound tapes - you might have enough money to
sue over.

It is immoral to take a copyrighted material and
distribuate (includes giving away) copys of it
in another format.

However, those in American have a 200 year history
of taking the "Authorized Version" logo and puting it
on their unauthorized Bible they just printed up.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Copyright clauses such as these are one reason why I prefer the KJV (I use both 1611 and 1769). I prefer not to feel encumbered when I spread God's word.

The Pilgims in the USofA used the Geneva Bible.
The Copyright status the KJVs is not determined
by discussion here yet so the Copyright status of
the KJV[]bs[/b] is dubious; by contrast & FOR SURE,
the Geneva Bible is NOT copyrighted.

 

[EdSutton]

The Pilgims in the USofA used the Geneva Bible.
The Copyright status the KJVs is not determined
by discussion here yet so the Copyright status of
the KJV[]bs[/b] is dubious; by contrast & FOR SURE,
the Geneva Bible is NOT copyrighted.

I'd say there is little question that the 1611 edition of the A. V. was 'copywrited'.

Anywho- Geneva Bible, Darby Translation, ASV.

Well, that's at least three that are not copywrited, by any means, and I'd almost guess that the Tyndale and Wyclif would be at least a couple more.

And I'm pretty sure that none of the Hebrew, Chaldee, or Greek manuscripts were ever copyrighted.

Kinda makes the alleged argument for 'using' (or abusing) the KJV a bit contradictory, wouldn't you think?

And outta' curiosity, why does anyone have a problem with citing the version, giving credit, or getting permission from the publisher to get approval, in the first place, if the reason is legitimate?

That, too, "do make one wonder"!

Ed