I have read and heard King James Bible proponents argue that translators must intentionally reword portions of their new translations in order to make them original. By that means, they are therefore able to be copyrighted (in other words, as a new and distinct work). For example, Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions states that “New versions are forced to scramble phrases in order to secure a copyright, which, according to the derivative copyright law requires ‘substantial changes’” (p. 76). Some people claim the change must be at least ten percent.
In most of the world, the Authorized Version (KJV) has long since passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced by any and all who wish to do so. In the U.S. we would call this “public domain.” However, in the United Kingdom, the British Crown restricts production of the Authorized Version under the Letters Patent issued with the royal prerogative. “Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown...”
Visual created by a Facebook member
So, it seems reasonable to think that a Bible that too closely resembled the Authorized King James Bible would violate the rights of the Crown in the United Kingdom, and on the other hand possibly would be considered “public domain” (not copyrightable) in other countries. That said, I have never seen anyone cite the law concerning copyrighting new translations. Further, I cannot find anything about “10%” being the required level of change. That almost seems like a guess or made-up claim.
I also know that if I were to print the CSB or NIV, I would obviously be in copyright violation and subject to whatever punishment that accrues.
It seems that the creation of some Bible versions are related to copyright issues. For example (and this needs to be more carefully verified), it is my understanding that the Southern Baptist Convention backed and created the (Holman) Christian Standard Bible so that they do not have to pay for or get permission to use the Bible as extensively as they wish in their printed materials. If someone has the specifics on this, I would be grateful to have the evidence.
- Bryan Ross discusses some of these issues in Considering Claims Concerning Copyright: King James Bible & Modern Versions.
- Maurice Robinson discusses copyright and translation in The Bondage of the Word: Copyright and the Bible (1996).
No doubt the legal governance of this will vary from country to country. In the United States, 17 U.S. Code § 103 applies to the subject matter of copyright of compilations and derivative works:
(a)The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b)The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
This is the bare fact, but court cases, precedents, and other things probably complicate the ability of lay persons to understand this matter of derivative Bible copyright. We should try to look at the law, the details, and try to know what we are talking about when we talk about it. I suspect a lot of what has been passed around is just what someone heard someone say (or write) and does not clearly represent what is required to copyright just one more English Bible translation (not that we need one more English Bible translation).
