Wittewrongel schreef:Is dit legaal?

Wittewrongel schreef:Is dit legaal?

Hendrikus schreef:

Wittewrongel schreef:Is dit legaal?

De King James dateert van 1611.
Dat is iets meer dan 70 jaar geleden.
En dus is de tekst vrij van auteursrecht.

Copyright status[edit]
The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.[154]

Other royal charters of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Authorized Version independently of the Queen's Printer. In Scotland the Authorized Version is published by Collins under licence from the Scottish Bible Board. The terms of the letters patent prohibit any other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.[154] All provisions granting copyright in perpetuity were abolished by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but because the Authorized Version is protected by royal prerogative rather than copyright, it will remain protected, as specified in CDPA s171(1)(b) .

Permission[edit]
Cambridge University Press permits the reproduction of at most 500 verses for "liturgical and non-commercial educational use" if their prescribed acknowledgement is included, the quoted verses do not exceed 25% of the publication quoting them and do not include a complete Bible book.[155] For use beyond this, the Press is willing to consider permission requested on a case-by-case basis and in 2011 a spokesman said the Press generally does not charge a fee but tries to ensure that a reputable source text is used.[156][157]

Bert Mulder schreef:

Hendrikus schreef:

Wittewrongel schreef:Is dit legaal?

De King James dateert van 1611.
Dat is iets meer dan 70 jaar geleden.
En dus is de tekst vrij van auteursrecht.

behalve als je in Brittannie bent:

Copyright status[edit]
The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.[154]

Other royal charters of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Authorized Version independently of the Queen's Printer. In Scotland the Authorized Version is published by Collins under licence from the Scottish Bible Board. The terms of the letters patent prohibit any other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.[154] All provisions granting copyright in perpetuity were abolished by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but because the Authorized Version is protected by royal prerogative rather than copyright, it will remain protected, as specified in CDPA s171(1)(b) .

Permission[edit]
Cambridge University Press permits the reproduction of at most 500 verses for "liturgical and non-commercial educational use" if their prescribed acknowledgement is included, the quoted verses do not exceed 25% of the publication quoting them and do not include a complete Bible book.[155] For use beyond this, the Press is willing to consider permission requested on a case-by-case basis and in 2011 a spokesman said the Press generally does not charge a fee but tries to ensure that a reputable source text is used.[156][157]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Van Ewijk schreef:

Wittewrongel schreef:Is dit legaal?

Ik heb nog nooit gehoord dat er commerciële rechten op de bijbel geclaimd werden door wie dan ook.

-DIA- schreef:

Van Ewijk schreef:

Wittewrongel schreef:Is dit legaal?

Ik heb nog nooit gehoord dat er commerciële rechten op de bijbel geclaimd werden door wie dan ook.

Jongbloed schijnt er copyright op te hebben. Dat mag je inderdaad wel een vorm van commercie noemen.
Net zo als vrijwel alles vercommercialiseert, tot de ziekenhuizen en begrafenisondernemingen toe.

Hendrikus schreef:

-DIA- schreef:

Van Ewijk schreef:

Wittewrongel schreef:Is dit legaal?

Ik heb nog nooit gehoord dat er commerciële rechten op de bijbel geclaimd werden door wie dan ook.

Jongbloed schijnt er copyright op te hebben. Dat mag je inderdaad wel een vorm van commercie noemen.
Net zo als vrijwel alles vercommercialiseert, tot de ziekenhuizen en begrafenisondernemingen toe.

​Op de tekst kan Jongbloed geen recht hebben. Wel op de opgemaakte tekst, zoals die door hen is uitgegeven. Dat heet dan het recht op de beelddrager.​

-DIA- schreef:

Hendrikus schreef: ​Op de tekst kan Jongbloed geen recht hebben. Wel op de opgemaakte tekst, zoals die door hen is uitgegeven. Dat heet dan het recht op de beelddrager.​

Maar dat houdt toch vanzelf in dat je niet onbeperkt uit die Jongbloed-uitgave mag citeren, of je moet "noodgedwongen" de Statenvertaling erbij nemen...