4 ms·

There are copyright notices in printed editions of the king James bible yet the words themselves are still in the public domain and you are free to use them how

There are copyright notices in printed editions of the king James bible yet the words themselves are still in the public domain and you are free to use them however you want to.

brisance 14y ago
The words are not in the "public domain"... you can't make a wholesale, verbatim copy of the King James Bible and call it the "hammersend Bible" because of copyright law. You may quote relevant passages from it though; this is well-established "fair use" doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#...
- hammersend 14y ago
  That's only valid in the UK. The Oracle vs Google trial is taking place in the United States where the KJV bible is most certainly in the public domain.
  - brisance 14y ago
    That's incorrect. The text is in the public domain but it is still covered by copyright. The copyright is not enforced outside the UK at this time. It is not pedantry; one cannot claim to have written the KJV version. A work that has passed into the public domain, or has become publicly available, still retains copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Public_domain Here's a concrete example. Someone wrote a very successful book and it is protected by copyright laws. You may reproduce sections of it, but not the whole book. After X years have passed, and the book has passed into the public domain, you may reproduce it in full. You may not alter the work to credit yourself as the author. Similarly, the crux of the matter is: does the Google version of the Java API constitute a derivative work that is significantly different from the Sun-Oracle version? As stated above, the UK and US do not recognize common law of copyright. So despite the fact that the Sun-Oracle APIs are publicly available, it does not allow Google to claim that the code that belonged to Sun-Oracle is free from restrictions and thus can be copied.
    - fffggg 14y ago
      "It is not pedantry; one cannot claim to have written the KJV version" Sure one can. In fact, copyright has nothing to say regarding plagiarism. US copyright only prevents the copying of a work. I could claim to have authored Star Wars, the Bible, and your post -- copyright does not provide you recourse against this so long as I do not /copy/ them. "The text is in the public domain but it is still covered by copyright." No, it is not. Text in the public domain is not covered by copyright according to US law. Copyright ONLY applies to copies and incorporation into derivative works in the USA. I apologize for being contradictory but you are completely wrong on both points here.
fffggg 14y ago
NKJV, the bible one typically finds in the USA, was edited and published in 1979 and is most certainly under copyright as a whole. In general, translations or adaptations of a work are under their own separate copyright. Your overarching point that some things have false (or partially false) notice on them is accurate -- however the point that copyright law is subtle and often unclear in its details is equally valid.

There are copyright notices in printed editions of the king James bible yet the words themselves are still in the public domain and you are free to use them however you want to.

brisance 14y ago

The words are not in the "public domain"... you can't make a wholesale, verbatim copy of the King James Bible and call it the "hammersend Bible" because of copyright law. You may quote relevant passages from it though; this is well-established "fair use" doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#...

hammersend 14y ago
That's only valid in the UK. The Oracle vs Google trial is taking place in the United States where the KJV bible is most certainly in the public domain.
- brisance 14y ago
  That's incorrect. The text is in the public domain but it is still covered by copyright. The copyright is not enforced outside the UK at this time. It is not pedantry; one cannot claim to have written the KJV version. A work that has passed into the public domain, or has become publicly available, still retains copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Public_domain Here's a concrete example. Someone wrote a very successful book and it is protected by copyright laws. You may reproduce sections of it, but not the whole book. After X years have passed, and the book has passed into the public domain, you may reproduce it in full. You may not alter the work to credit yourself as the author. Similarly, the crux of the matter is: does the Google version of the Java API constitute a derivative work that is significantly different from the Sun-Oracle version? As stated above, the UK and US do not recognize common law of copyright. So despite the fact that the Sun-Oracle APIs are publicly available, it does not allow Google to claim that the code that belonged to Sun-Oracle is free from restrictions and thus can be copied.
  - fffggg 14y ago
    "It is not pedantry; one cannot claim to have written the KJV version" Sure one can. In fact, copyright has nothing to say regarding plagiarism. US copyright only prevents the copying of a work. I could claim to have authored Star Wars, the Bible, and your post -- copyright does not provide you recourse against this so long as I do not /copy/ them. "The text is in the public domain but it is still covered by copyright." No, it is not. Text in the public domain is not covered by copyright according to US law. Copyright ONLY applies to copies and incorporation into derivative works in the USA. I apologize for being contradictory but you are completely wrong on both points here.

fffggg 14y ago

NKJV, the bible one typically finds in the USA, was edited and published in 1979 and is most certainly under copyright as a whole. In general, translations or adaptations of a work are under their own separate copyright. Your overarching point that some things have false (or partially false) notice on them is accurate -- however the point that copyright law is subtle and often unclear in its details is equally valid.