Earl Grey please don’t go asking about local parish usage things. Don’t encourage them to make regulations for things that aren’t hurting anyone anyway.

Thanks, ServiamScores. One question: in "... you have to send things to the Secretariat for Divine Worship and the USCCB copyright office first, before contacting ICEL" - what are "things" that we have to send?

Everything that is to be used liturgically. Everything needs to be approved by SDW, and only then will ICEL (potentially) license it.

It was explained to me that ICEL is subordinate to all bishops' conferences, and so each conference's divine worship office must approve something as fit for liturgy first, at which point ICEL can then license the text. ICEL cannot be put in the position of licensing a text that a conference then does not want to be used. (Lord help me if I can figure out an example of how that could come to pass, since by their very nature, ICEL texts are the official liturgical texts... but that was what I was told in any case). Consequently, each SDW reviews a piece, approves it for use and corrects any errata, and then ICEL can license its use.

The kiss of Judas… to everyone else it looks like an act of devotion, but in reality it is simply betrayal… all fomented by mixed intentions, maybe some good mostly bad, but only leads to the consequences of gaining 30 pieces of metal and losing one’s soul.

In regard to responsorial psalm settings: Am I right in thinking that the Scripture texts of the US Lectionary belong to the USCCB, and that only the antiphons were made by ICEL?

So there is a multi-phase process:

permission for liturgical use (USCCB)

permission to reprint copyrighted lectionary text (if used): (USCCB)

permission to reprint other copyrighted Mass texts (ICEL).

In the past, the Conference has made arrangements to let GIA function as its agent for granting permissions on certain copyrighted materials (the Revised Grail Psalter). It sounds as though the above procedure could be simplified for composers if ICEL would let the USCCB Divine Worship office perform this same function and act as a permissions agent for ICEL's texts.

Not all changes are necessarily an improvement. I'll be interested to read James' forthcoming blog post with more details. Historically, the USCCB permission for liturgical use was limited to ordinaries and responses. They've expanded their definition of what is called for their review per the GIRM to include the responsorial psalms and English propers, I presume. If you combine that fact with the prior practice that no fee or review was necessary for NAB texts in non-commercial settings, and that ICEL also does not require fee or review for non-commercial use, and then add in that GIA would issue gratis license for free internet distribution of RGP texts... it used to be a very nice situation for folks who wanted to share their compositions.

Now, with the former review that was reserved for (basically) texts from the Missal expanded, and the definition of publishing now including non-commercial distribution—and the staff availability for the required review being small... I wish they would have just left things alone, but I do look forward to hearing more about what is coming.

Another point that I'm especially interested to see the future of—the 3 year "implementation" time mentioned above when the new Lectionary is released. When Mary mentioned that to me a while back, it was explained that after that time the only texts allowed in liturgy would be those currently in the Lectionary, with no provision to allow "any previously approved sung text" as we currently have, with only spoken use requiring the Lectionary translation (thought I guess the APC is ok at the moment as well since the conference approved it for liturgical use?).

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it's already an option. The music is set up so you can either sing it through or do the repeating refrain. I would personally like to scrap it altogether, but that's another issue entirely.

It’s pedantic when absolutely no one sings it this way. (And I’ve been to Mass where it’s used; contrary to popular belief, I get out of the bubble sometimes, even if it’s increasingly not the case thankfully.)

Regardless the refrain of that setting is bizarre and does damage to the text, and the conference should just refuse to approve settings which aren’t through-composed.

Any setting of the ordinary requires “ecclesial approval,” to be licetly used at Mass—Latin included.

Legacy Latin ordinaries are in the public domain.

Which means a long-term practical effect of the new policy may be to incentivize the use of the legacy Latin ordinaries over time as legacy pastor and music director tenures turn over and are succeeded by personnel who may decide the quality of the settings promoted by the major commercial publishers are not worthy of being retained in repertoire. I am not sure if the USCCB staff sees that (the lawyers giving them advice almost certainly are agnostic about practical effect; legal advice is often only as good as the questions and facts given by clients....)

I am interested in the cutoff point they would select for which pieces that require submission - whether it refers to any relevant piece written after the rule comes into effect, or any relevant piece within the composer's lifetime.

I also wonder whether existing works by recent composers will now be off the table until they themselves go through the process. And if those composers never went through the process, whether those settings will be forever forbidden from liturgy until they do - even if the composers have passed away in the meantime.

If I remember right, just a few years ago, the Committee's staff was telling inquirers that the USCCB didn't intend to require an approval process for vernacular chant adaptations. Anyone else remember that?

If the Committee really intends to revoke existing permissions, they ought to have the common sense to allow more than three years for composers and publishers to go through the entire process for the vast quantity of existing works.

Is a reliable text of the lectionary psalms even available to the public yet?

I don’t think that it matters. They should be more generous in licensing, but they would be completely within their rights, and someone would lose badly, if the conference decided to pursue collections made without its approval.

Yes, although it’s a bit convoluted, and they should simply or eliminate much (not quite all, not in all cases), they should not charge fees the way that they want to do, etc. (I’m not defending the morality or wisdom of their decisions, but the positive law allows for it…)

I’m not in front of a computer right now, but I’m pretty sure they will not license the projection of lectionary texts in the liturgy. You’d go to bible and then permissions on the USCCB website, I believe, to see licensing options.

In Re projection: Not permissions but allowances under Covid restrictions that are being phased out.

From the website
“Permission must be requested for any use exceeding 5,000 words from the Lectionary for Mass or any use which reprints more than 40% of the readings for a rite or season.”

Is that what we are dealing with? If a composer publishes psalms individually then there is no violation right?

Some parishes have the money to buy new hymnals, but others which were wiped out by Covid don’t have them yet. The weekly collections are increasing so it’s not a permanent situation.

I assume if the text is from their website it’s already been approved. We need them to double check our work and must pay for this.

How do we go about getting licensed? USCCB has not offered any response.

How do you get a USCCB license anyway? Asking for a friend. Is there a step by step process?

There is... sort of. This was why I had a zoom call to discuss the issue.

I just sent them the question via their website. I couldn’t find any mention of music on their website as it is. Just info about permissions regarding projecting the readings.

This is a very, very real issue.

I'll have more to report back on this once I confirm a few details with Mary.

Exceptions to the ubiquity of CBW III, already 30 years old, are not very rare. A number of places I know (and they are often tradition-minded or poor or both) use CBW Ii (1980). We find it easier to choose our (two) English hymns from it, supplemented by the Traditional Roman Hymnal from time to time, rather than from the bulky and bowdlerized CBW III.

Oh the irony

It seems the NO world is running quickly toward being obsolete as it plans its own demise with restrictions, which is truly the pendulum swinging very hard in the opposite direction from its previous stance where anything goes.

I also am not sure that the public-domain model works for Catholics, in part because civil-law countries do not have an equivalent by which you may put something in the public domain directly. Only the law can allow something to be in the public domain.

I disagree. For starters, CreativeCommons is a thing which has legal standing. So even copyrightable works could be permitted CC-ND-NC (no derivatives, non commercial). The USCCB could do this with the lectionary, for instance. And then you couldn't change a jot or tittle, and they could still charge a licensing fee for any commercial enterprise. Every other little parish and music program could get on with their lives unmolested.

It is my understanding from a colleague that the French Bishops' conference has released the entirety of the Lectionary, Bible, and LOTH on their website and permit free usage. Only commercial usage is restricted. So clearly this model can be done, given the right discussion and will-power on the part of those in control.

Regarding hymnody, I can just about count on 10 fingers the number of times per year we do a truly copyrighted hymn on a Sunday. I have 7+ years of hymn files of texts and tunes that are all public domain (most of which is vastly preferable to what is published). There are just a few biggies that are difficult to get away from (O God Beyond All Praising, any text to Abbot's Leigh, etc.) The hymnal 1982 is not in the PD, but much of its content is. So you might not be able to use a scan of the hymnal and reprint that, but you can certainly engrave clean versions of things in there. Or use a different PD version of the music if an arrangement was newly done specifically for the hymnal.

I understand that Creative Commons is a thing. But try explaining that to the civil lawyers of the Holy See. (CC-0 is actually the equivalent of putting it in the public domain, so that would be the equivalent of what TEC did for the BCP.)

I’m not saying that they can’t be more generous as is AELF, but it has to work in a civil-law framework. Anglo-American concepts are a nonstarter.

I also think that for better or worse they have a smaller number of people to deal with and that they’re writing off Francophone Africa whereas we have the U.S., Great Britain and Ireland, the rest of the developed Commonwealth…

What is it costing Ostrowski to keep offering Chabanel downloads?

A wise counsel would have advised a client not to bite off more than it can reasonably chew, and a prudent client would heed such advice.

My notes from our meeting have now gone live:

https://psallitedomino.com/blog/composers-guide-2025-pt1

Of particular note to some is the fact that the new lectionary is not expected until Advent I, 2028 at the earliest. That is only if everything goes perfectly according to plan. Otherwise it would be implemented Advent I of 2029 (Year B). There will also be an official grace period of 3 years to transition psalms over to the new translation, which means the current psalms can licitly be in circulation until at least 2031. That's still a long time if approval is granted for settings now.

As for licensing, I'm afraid it really is the dumpster fire we feared; depending on the composition of the text and who the copyright owner(s) are, you may need separate licenses from the USCCB, CCD, and ICEL. Oof.

That said, the blog offers a step-by-step instruction for how the process is supposed to work, which is still more clarity than we've had previously.

I've already received on criticism on FB: namely, that I tried to put a positive spin on things to diffuse tensions. Stating the fact that there are legitimate concerns on the part of the USCCB (because there are) is "unconvincing". I do not feel at liberty to go too much into detail in that regard, but there were multiple anecdotes of abuse shared with me. One of which was the fact that in the wake of the council, things were not initially copyrighted. This caused major problems when people messed around with the official texts and re-promulgated documents under the official titles, so the bastardized editions appeared to be the legitimate ones, and the USCCB had no legal standing to do anything about it. The then cardinal legate specifically instructed the USCCB to copyright everything so that they could legitimately moderate the abuse that was occurring. Well, it sounds an awful lot like a case of a few idiots ruining it for everyone.

To be clear: I still think these texts should be released to the PD à la Anglicanism, and I particularly dislike the fact that licensing fees are required to print the readings in worship aids. But we are where we are. And I do confess, hearing their side of the issue was not without its merits. Then again, owning the copyright to something does not de facto mean it has to be enforced. So there's that.

At this point, (and until something changes) we have to make the best of it. How each person decides to go about it is a prudential matter and personal choice. I'm going to do the best I can to play the game if for no other reason than there appears to be an appetite for what I'm offering, and I cannot afford litigation as the sole earner for a family of 6. That said, I'm still mulling over the idea of a large-scale petition or something to really get the eyes of the bishops on the issue. PM me if you have good ideas.

I REALLY hate the idea that good composers of genuinely liturgical music would just throw up their hands and say "to heck with it" and just languish in obscurity. I don't think that's the right way to build up the Church (or rather, re-buid the church à la St. Francis). We need a bunch of musical Franciscans re-building liturgical culture the way St. Francis rebuilt the churches themselves. I'm going to do what I can, within the current strictures, even if it is a pain. But I also hope to move the needle. I do think the system is broken... but it's all we've got.

@ServiamScores
How much money is this costing the composer? There are no details as to what we are getting into. They need to have a brochure containing the various legal terms as well as the price, and we need to be able to go thru this before even accessing their submission upload site. What do we submit to keep the price low. Also, it seems like we need to have our Latin settings approved?