Grail complexities
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Everyone knows about GIA's claim concerning the new revised reformed re-translated redone revisited Grail that no one has yet seen but which the USCCB now says will be used for Mass once it is actually published by GIA, the same company that will hold all admin rights.

    But there seem to be massive complications about versions here. The one currently in the Office is under copyright for sure. I know this because GIA or someone has been slapping bloggers around for years over this. But what about the one labeled as copyright 1963? I don't see a renewal for this, and it would have come up in 1991. There is no record, so it strikes me that this MIGHT be in public domain. Apparently no one seems to have an interest in keeping this text off line.

    Anyone know anything about this or find any case law on the Grail in general.

    As a side point, I find that stretches plausibility that there could be much in the way of "new material" for 150 verses of small book that have been translated from out of the same language and into the another language for more then half a millennium.

    My own wish is that someone with deep pockets would dump a bunch of money on whoever is craving it and declare that the Psalms belong to everyone.
  • The 1963 translation is the one in the English translation of the LotH.

    My print copy of this translation, published by Paulist Press, says that the copyright was indeed renewed in 1991.

    Nonetheless, here is that translation online: http://www.athanasius.com/psalms/psalms1.html.

    There are a few typos, but it’s basically there.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    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.
  • It’s an English copyright....so maybe it wouldn’t be in the U.S. database....?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    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.
  • The copyright in my book says:

    Copyright © by The Grail (England).
    Copyright renewed 1991 by The Grail.

    First published in [sic] Fontana books 1966
    Published in the United States by Paulist Press
    997 Macarthur Blvd., Mahwah, NJ 07430

    Here is an Amazon link to the book.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    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.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Ah ha. here it is:

    The Psalms; a new translation. By Philippa Craig.
    Type of Work: Text
    Registration Number / Date: RE0000561510 / 1991-12-12
    Renewal registration for: UCC work / 1963-09-02
    Title: The Psalms; a new translation. By Philippa Craig.
    Copyright Claimant: the Grail (England) (PWH)

    Variant title: The Psalms
    Names: Craig, Philippa
    Grail (England)


    That settles it. Copyright expires in 2058. Most of us will be dead by the time the Psalms of David under this translation become part of the commons of the faith.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,245
    ...or Jesus comes back first at which point he will reclaim everything for himself.
  • This has the potential for being a good article for the New Yorker.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    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.
  • This is a real breakthrough. Hallelujah. And congratulations to those who have worked and advocated for freeing the liturgy--at least in a few crucial areas--from commercial and State control.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,245
    Curious.

    Does anyone know what a standard publishing fee would be if one was to compose music and distribute for sale?
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    This is great news!
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    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.
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    Jeffrey - I realize that this is a pet peeve of yours, but I think you owe it to folks to be transparent as well. GIA has done what you led all to believe was unthinkable, and rather than post a "thank you" you claim victory. And in the next breath you summarize UK musicians as saying the fees are "nearly unaffordable". First of all, that means that they are affordable. Secondly, why don't you post what those fees are? Anything short of that information is simply a continuing case of innuendo and highly inappropriate in any sort of Catholic setting.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    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.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    www.giamusic.com/RGP

    "Please check back for updates"

    Hopefully one of the updates will be a corrected webpage title.
    It currently reads:
    African American Church Music - GIA Publications
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,588
    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.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    The publishers themselves all trace the problem to ICEL. They say that the royalties they are charge are compensation for what ICEL charges them. I've written to ICEL several times on this subject but ICEL itself, which claims not to like it either, says that they are just carrying out the policy of the USCCB. The USCCB says that this is the BCL's policy that it is carrying out. I keep digging and digging but only get referred to new acronyms. Significantly, no one seems to be willing to defend the policy of charging royalties on indulgenced texts.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,588
    Do the ICEL and USCCB publish public budgets showing these figures?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    No
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,588
    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?