The Revised Grail Psalms is now posted by the GIA. So is the copyright notice, which is treatise of its own. Some version of this long notice (Summary: you can look but nothing more) has been previously posted but now the GIA has added a new proviso: users “may not include the texts on their own websites without permission. This policy is in place to assure the integrity of the texts” (a site like BibleGateway that has 100 editions is supposedly lacking in integrity).
This is a new provision. The previous deal was that websites could post the text to the Psalms one link at a time. For comparison, here is the notice from April 2009:
Now the composer can apparently post music but no text, so it appears that you have to have two windows open or maybe have two people present, one to read the text and one to hum the tune. It’s actually not entirely clear. In any case, what’s important here is that it is clear who is in control and who makes the decisions.
Please note that, so far as I know, the publication of the Revised Grail Psalms is completely unrelated to the promulgation of the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal.
Jeffrey,
It's obvious that in 2009, they were willing to let people post the Psalms, but now (2011) they are saying this is not allowed.
QUESTION: Who made this change? Did they intend it all along? Is Conception aware of this?
At first glance, it would appear that they never had any intention of letting people post even one Psalm.
It is similar to what we do with our young children. When they want something, we say, "Later, later."
We know the child will forget, because kids have short attention spans. We have no intention of giving it to the child "later."
Jefrrey, I think you misunderstand the 2009 notice. It says if you want to reference the text of a psalm on your web site, you must do so by means of a link to the text on the GIA site. (I pointed this out to you two years ago, I think.) Nothing has changed.
I never read the 2009 notice that way.
"For websites … that wish to include parts of the Text in their content, a link to the RGP website must be attached."
The link must be attached to what? – clearly, this notes reads that the link must be attached to the reprint of the Text (or portion thereof) that was included on the website in question – at least that's what I thought.
I read it no as a most definite change.
I don't have a problem with the Revised Grail Psalms.
I think they are translated in a fine way, and the text stresses are (to my taste) much better for chanting (especially to psalm tones) than Douay-Rheims. But what good is all that if you can't use them?
If I wanted to publish music for profit, I could understand the requirement of sharing some of that profit with those who translated the text.
If I want to give away my composition (or even my particular suggestion of pointing to a psalmtone) to the Church and the world, why should I have to pay royalties?
The optimist within is hoping that perhaps it is just that GIA is stuck in the mindset that all are operating in the "for profit" mindset, and that if the case were made one would use the Revised Grail Psalms for a setting offered for free, they would just want to see it to check for accuracy and then allow you to distribute it, but I don't know… Before we complain too much, one of us should bite the bullet, take the leap, and see what happens….
Copernicus,
You need to please carefully read (again) the 2009:
"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."
In other words, if you wish to include excerpts of the Psalter, you have to link to the website.
What could be clearer than this?
If there was any doubt, GIA then says:
"For any site that operates on a subscription basis or charges fees, appropriate royalties will apply."
Copernicus, you're not for one instant suggesting that people would have to PAY to include a LINK to a site available 24-hours-a-day, are you?
This makes absolutely no sense at all, as I'm sure you'll agree.
GIA has changed the policy, now that it is too late for the Church to do anything about it. They win.
Well, the text is clearly changed, and I can tell you from a detailed conversation I had about this with a Grail-affiliated official that the plan was to permit text provided there was a link – exactly as the awkward wording implies. But regardless, it's pretty clear that is going on here, which is pretty much everything I've been writing and warning about for two years. The Bishops who approved this whole thing are either naive or completely unschooled in the details and implications of IP law.
Maybe if you *omit* a word here or there…..
I wonder whether there's any plan to publish the Revised Grail psalms with normal half-verse pointing (using an asterisk or other symbol) for use with plainsong tones. I guess GIA will have to do it. Collins did it (along with the Gelineau thumps…er, stresses) with the 1963 version in the various UK Divine Office editions, so it's possible. Wonder why GIA sticks with Gelineau pointing only.
This still leaves me with many questions. For one, why did the USCCB allow this situation to be the default and official Psalms of the English speaking Church in America? Did they learn nothing from the fiasco with the NAB where certain Catholic Churches were forbidden from using the Lectionary at Mass!!!
Secondly, according to the new and improved (?) licensing on the GIA website:
No alterations to the RGP of any kind are permitted without obtaining written permission. This includes, but is not limited to, punctuation, line breaks, and indentations if the RGP is printed in poetic form.
Since when did a copyright holder (or administrator) become so bold as to dictate typographical layout! What's next, will they demand which fonts may or may not be used?!
Another question is who gets money? First off, what are the fees for licensing these Psalms? I'm assuming that the likes of OCP will be paying handsomely for using this Psalms — what about GIA? And from all the money collected, where does the lion's share go? GIA, Conception Abbey, Grail, etc.?
Finally, since the licensing states:
The Revised Grail Psalms Copyright © 2010, Conception Abbey/The Grail, admin. by GIA Publications, Inc., http://www.giamusic.com All rights reserved.
Does that mean that if or when Conception Abbey gets fed up with GIA that they can drop them like a bad habit, post haste?
A few things:
I received permission to post musical settings of Grail Psalms on my web page a few hours after I made the request.
As for: "Since when did a copyright holder (or administrator) become so bold as to dictate typographical layout! What's next, will they demand which fonts may or may not be used?!"
It's how the NRSV was treated when permission was released for the St John's Illuminated Bible.
These copyright policies seem generous to me. If you make money off someone else's work, you share the profits. No problem, as far as I can see.
Todd, that's fantastic. I hope such liberal permissions continue. That's great news.
Jeffrey,
I, in theory, agree with your objections to a publisher "owning" the psalms in this way. However, I also just emailed GIA for permission to use the RGP in psalms settings, distributed for free, online. I had no trouble whatsoever. I received permission fewer than 24 hours later.
I am almost certain I remember reading that the the Congregation for Divine Worship had decreed that the Grail psalms were to be the preferred English translation of the psalms for the liturgy. The choice of the Grail psalms does not originate with the USCCB or ICEL.
I like the Grail psalms!
This still leaves me with many questions. For one, why did the USCCB allow this situation to be the default and official Psalms of the English speaking Church in America? Did they learn nothing from the fiasco with the NAB where certain Catholic Churches were forbidden from using the Lectionary at Mass!!!
Secondly, according to the new and improved (?) licensing on the GIA website:
No alterations to the RGP of any kind are permitted without obtaining written permission. This includes, but is not limited to, punctuation, line breaks, and indentations if the RGP is printed in poetic form.
Since when did a copyright holder (or administrator) become so bold as to dictate typographical layout! What's next, will they demand which fonts may or may not be used?!
Another question is who gets money? First off, what are the fees for licensing these Psalms? I'm assuming that the likes of OCP will be paying handsomely for using this Psalms — what about GIA? And from all the money collected, where does the lion's share go? GIA, Conception Abbey, Grail, etc.?
Finally, since the licensing states:
The Revised Grail Psalms Copyright © 2010, Conception Abbey/The Grail, admin. by GIA Publications, Inc., http://www.giamusic.com All rights reserved.
Does that mean that if or when Conception Abbey gets fed up with GIA that they can drop them like a bad habit, post haste?
This still leaves me with many questions. For one, why did the USCCB allow this situation to be the default and official Psalms of the English speaking Church in America? Did they learn nothing from the fiasco with the NAB where certain Catholic Churches were forbidden from using the Lectionary at Mass!!!
Secondly, according to the new and improved (?) licensing on the GIA website:
No alterations to the RGP of any kind are permitted without obtaining written permission. This includes, but is not limited to, punctuation, line breaks, and indentations if the RGP is printed in poetic form.
Since when did a copyright holder (or administrator) become so bold as to dictate typographical layout! What's next, will they demand which fonts may or may not be used?!
Another question is who gets money? First off, what are the fees for licensing these Psalms? I'm assuming that the likes of OCP will be paying handsomely for using this Psalms — what about GIA? And from all the money collected, where does the lion's share go? GIA, Conception Abbey, Grail, etc.?
Finally, since the licensing states:
The Revised Grail Psalms Copyright © 2010, Conception Abbey/The Grail, admin. by GIA Publications, Inc., http://www.giamusic.com All rights reserved.
Does that mean that if or when Conception Abbey gets fed up with GIA that they can drop them like a bad habit, post haste?