[Jeremy]

After reading New Age Versions by Gail Riplinger and her mention of copyrighted material,i looked into what she said. In order to have a copyright, there has to be a significant enough change for a new copyright. So,that makes sense if you have an NIV from 73,78 etc and why none of those versions agree. Would you want another version? Not me. The KJ doesn't have a copyright,for good reason. Thank God for His Preservation of His Word. It is perfect and without error.

Also i was interested if the copyright in the book was the same as the publishing date.
Here is the response i recieved from the State Law Library of Iowa-Law Library.

1.The Publishing date is the same as the copyright date.

2. A copyright application allows for an author to request an additional copyright for a derivative work if the U.S. Copyright Office deems material added to the pre-existing work to be significant enough for a new copyright.

This backs up those statements made by GA Riplinger.
It is elementary to most of you,but thought it was interesting nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

The KJ doesn't have a copyright,for good reason. Thank God for His Preservation of His Word. It is perfect and without error.

Very true brother, and it's a worthwhile study regarding copyright... I decided long ago it would make no sense to have man's copyright on God's work!

Copywrite laws are different in different contries. In the US all rights are expired and the AV is public domain. However, in the United Kingdom the Crown owns the rights to the AV and in order to print it you need permission. Look at the title page of a Bible printed in the UK it reads "Rights in the Authorized Version are vested in the Crown."

[Brother Tim]

The simple difference in the use of copyrights is:

The British crown copyright is solely to protect the integrity of the text, while the mv copyrights are to protect the bottom line of the publisher's profits. Plain and simple!

Bro. Tim is correct, by the way as I understand it the universities of Oxford and Cambridge also possess the right to print the Bible over there. But it doesn't matter. The superior text of the KJV has long left any restrictions of kings (or queens) and swept around the world to reach millions upon millions.

"The Lord gave the word:
great was the company of those that PUBLISHED it." - Psalm 68:11

The fact that the AV is not under copyright in the US is meaningless as an argument either in favor of or against it as a translation. It just doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the AV was published before 1923 and like ALL other books published before 1923 it is public domain in the US.

If a person wishes to argue in favor of the AV, there are a lot of very potent arguments that can be made. This just isn't one of them.

In fact, the Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901 are also not under copyright.

Well I agree there are more potent points to ponder,
but the fact remains that the vast majority of the modern per-versions on the market DO have copyrighted text, I think the KJV is STILL the only really popular Bible used today without a copyright, and it certainly proves one thing;
man can't control what he doesn't own.

Since the KJV is the one Bible that God has chosen, blessed and used more than all others, it may be worth consideration. The lack of copyright is perhaps more important when we stop to consider what if the KJV actually WAS restricted by copyright to this day? What impact would that have had on the revivals in history, missionary efforts around the world, and even the culture of the U.S.? The lack of copyright meant it could now be produced in very large editions for MASS PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION, so it established complete dominance in public and ecclesiastical use in the English-speaking Protestant world. That allowed for 250 years of outright dominance (I guess roughly 1700 to 1950) over all other versions, and it's still popular today. Food for thought.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

The fact that the AV is not under copyright in the US is meaningless as an argument either in favor of or against it as a translation. It just doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the AV was published before 1923 and like ALL other books published before 1923 it is public domain in the US.

If a person wishes to argue in favor of the AV, there are a lot of very potent arguments that can be made. This just isn't one of them.

In fact, the Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901 are also not under copyright.

5.. 4..

[Luke]

One thing people don't understand is that copyright doesn't cost money. It's automatic and is on ANY written work (or video, or animation or sound etc). It's not like the authors of modern Bible versions pay for a copyright to protect their work (and I stress their).. it's automatic.

The only way NOT to have a copyright is by distributing it under a creative commons license or just giving general permission to reprint.

Originally Posted by Luke

It's not like the authors of modern Bible versions pay for a copyright to protect their work...

True, they pay expensive lawyers who use copyright law to protect their intellectual property.