If it was renewed in 1991, there doesn't seem to be a listing of it at the US Gov database. Maybe someone can see something I do not see. Search the database and let me know what terms to use so that I can see this 1991 renewal.

If it is published in the U.S. in 1963, it would have be to renewed in the US in 1991. If not, it is public domain. No exceptions.

That's interesting because the Amazon link says John Wiley and Sons 1963. The question would be whether this was US or UK. John Wiley has offices in many countries.

In any case, I see nothing in the U.S. database about a 1991 renewal.

...or Jesus comes back first at which point he will reclaim everything for himself.

here is a PDF of the Grail policy. It is nearly a total victory for the cause of online distribution of Psalm settings, and Chabanel in particular. Yes, they still retain copyright and are in a position to dole out commercial rights at any price, but this is certainly half a loaf, and the half that will benefit musicians (if not fiduciarily) the most. The document was created on April 29, so it is very new. It roughly accords with ICEL's current policies. Very good, very good. The gears of history have clicked forward one notch. Thanks to everyone who helped here.

The Revised Grail Psalms are available at www.giamusic.com/RGP. For websites of a religious or devotional nature that wish to include parts of the Text in their content, a link to the RGP website must be attached. Each of the psalms is on a separate link; devotional sites may conveniently link to whichever, and as many, psalms as they choose. For any site that operates on a subscription basis or charges fees, appropriate royalties will apply.

Curious.

Does anyone know what a standard publishing fee would be if one was to compose music and distribute for sale?

No way to know what the fees are going to be. I assume that they will be arbitrary. In the UK, the musicians report that the fees for the Grail are nearly unaffordable for any small publisher, thus creating a cartel of large publishers with an in-bred composer circle. The rights holder denies this.

I'm hoping that as matters progress, all financial arrangements made with publishers will be wholly transparent. This is essential.

Well, I could do without the moralizing here. I don't know what the fees are. They are not posted. I've heard publishers' estimates but I've also heard from the rights holder that there are misunderstandings. Not wanting to post inaccurate information, I've only called for transparency so that at least something accurate can be made public.

As for victory, it is great thing for Catholic musicians to have access to these. I said I was very happy, etc. but I'm not going to say "thank you" to an institution that continues to withhold an infinitely reproducible ritual text pending payment. I think it is a good thing that GIA is permitting free downloads, and I said so. Finally, if I thought it was unthinkable that GIA would permit free downloads, I wouldn't have been posting on this ad infinitum.

PET PEEVE? PET PEEVE?

This is a major issue. The policy that we are finally hearing about should have been made public long ago, which would have allayed a lot of fears. And the issue should have been responded to the moment the discussion popped up.

Instead of these psalms being freely out there to be composed, like the Latin Mass text, these are hidebound to a commercial entity. Doesn't seem right. But, if the monks were looking for wide distribution, one of these major publishing houses would be the way to go....if they would do it for free.

Because there are royalties involved, composers who are aware of the problems trying to get something published will avoid writing music for these. I was involved in a project in which I was asked to take over the production of a book of organ music arrangments by an organ company, being done with a major publisher. The publisher, who owned the copyrights, then decided to abandon the project as well and gave it to us. BUT, not the copyrights.

I approached another major publisher who laughed, explaining that I was wasting my time since if he was to publish it he would make no money since copyrights had to be paid to the other publisher. But he could take them and put one in a collection of his music, pay just for it and make money ON THE COPYRIGHTS HE HELD, but using the popularity of the other publisher's copyrighted piece to get people to buy his book.

Royalties in many cases are based upon the number of copyright pieces in the book, divided into the price of the book.

The same original publisher's attorney's wrote my editor a letter, threatening a lawsuit because she had submitted arrangements for publication that were right upfront a clear infringement on their copyrights and they were not going to back down.

The next morning we got a call from the editor there [who, if you are in the business might know since he has the same first and last name] who asked if we had gotten a letter from the lawyers. When we said yes, he told us that he had met with them and based upon the fact the my editor was 1. a staff composer and 2. had arranged HER OWN WORKS and submitted them that there was no copyright infringement involved.

And they gave us the copyrights free as a result.

Do the ICEL and USCCB publish public budgets showing these figures?

And...why not? Based upon the decision to sell downloads for the same price as printed ordos makes one wonder if anyone, anyone there has a clue?