Bibles and Berne
My previous post discussed the idea of copyright as it applies to Bible translations. My information is based on my imperfect knowledge of the Berne Convention which by default grants rights automatically to an author or artist.Peter Kirk rightly questions whether copyright is the appropriate instrument. Dannii also asks if trademark would be a better tool.
Now, the interesting question is who is the intellectual property owner of a translation of the Bible. I know legally that most Bible agencies believe they legally own translations that they have funded, organized and carried out. That is on one level perfectly acceptable. But it could be argued that most of the translations were produced at the behest of local language communities who facilitated the translation process in hopes of coming out of the process with a Bible for them. A slightly different thing happens when I as a linguist go into a language community and pay someone to tell me a folktale which I then turn around and analyze, publish, sell or whatever. Is the teller of the tale the moral owner of his story? If so we must be very careful to respect human rights. In actuality, much linguistic work is recognized as scientific work involving human subjects. As such it is very tightly controlled.
So I guess again the question comes back to who should have the controlling interest in a Bible translation? The agency or the language community?
Now before we write off the Bible agencies, let me just say how difficult it is to archive, edit, revise, print, publish and distribute any kind of print material. Print-on-demand is a fine concept but when you are talking about some of the very large language communities of Southern Africa, it just isn’t effective. No one in the Western world expects that they would be better off if they could just print out their own Bible. We depend on for-profit publishers for many of our favorite translations in the world’s largest languages. But in the diverse communities of Africa we need to have options. That’s why Bible agencies can fulfill their ends by giving certain rights to the public while retaining others. I personally don’t feel that there is a conflict between selling your Bibles on one hand and on the other hand giving away the source files for others to print and possibly give away or sell. If a translation owner is able to supply the demand for Bibles, then it is unlikely that another organization is going to find it possible or desirable to compete with them. But if the same translation organization is not able to supply the demand for print then they almost have a moral imperative to make their texts available to others who might be able to satisfy the demand. See my post, Availability and Accessibility are not the same thing: A case study of the Ndau Bible, for a case where offering the source files to others might help fulfill the Bible agencies mission.
Thanks for the link. Well, I note that not every country, even in southern Africa, is a signatory of the Berne Convention. One country well known to you is not. And according to Wikipedia the USA still has a concept of registered copyright which is required for full copyright protection.
PS Your new WordPress version of this blog seems to be lacking an option for subscribing to follow-up comments by e-mail. Maybe it happens automatically as with Posterous, which was good in my opinion. If not, please can you make it an option. I don’t like subscribing to comment feeds by RSS as they clog up my reader.
Peter, that option is now available. Thanks for suggesting it.
I want to make sure I understand your concerns.
Are translations of the Bible distinguished because of the source material, because you feel that the Bible in particular requires special treatment in copyright law?
Or are translations of the Bible distinguished because some of them are developed by Bible agencies? (Thus, if I form the International Plato Society, with a mission to translate Plato into many different languages with the assistance of members of the local community, the same issues would arise?)
If the former, why is the Bible different from any other religious work (for example, the Iliad, which describes the behavior of the Greek gods)?
If the latter, I would imagine that contractual agreements executed prior to individuals beginning work on the translation would clearly define intellectual property ownership.
I have trouble understanding the hostility against Bible copyrights. While there are clearly problems with the current copyright regime (e.g., the ridiculously long copyright period now in the US, or the way that the US bullies other countries through the World Intellectual Property Organization, or the absurdly high statutory damage amounts permitted under Title 17), I see no general reason why intellectual property is different from tangible property. If I own a Bible, you do not have the right to enter my property and take it from me.
Excellent, Theophrastus. I’m definitely thinking of the latter. This is in essence a case of Manhattan Island being sold for beads and trinkets. Often local language communities don’t fully understand the implications of agreements they make with foreign NGOs. There’s a tacit assumption that everyone is trying to be helpful without realization that policies regarding texts could possibly restrict their open distribution and access.
In some cases, I think having another language to list on a mission’s promo material can be an effective way to prove what a good job they are doing but the result is that language is now “available” (terms and conditions apply) but not accessible. To give an example the dramatized New Testaments produced by FCBH in cooperation with the Bible Societies are neither open or accessible since they can’t be freely reproduced or distributed unless you use a certain audio player (the Proclaimer) and a certain distribution method (listening groups). As I mentioned in a previous post about Ndau, several agencies have expressed interest in distributing those recordings but aren’t able to get past the restrictions.