D045 Task Force for Reviewing Intellectual Property of the Church
Canon II.3.6.b was written in 1967 (Resolution #12 from the Report of the Standing Liturgical Commission) well before the internet existed and before open source or copyleft policies were created. It certainly existed before personal computers became so small, they could be held in the palm of your hand and offer direct connection to two or three gathered individuals across miles and miles of land. And in that time, 4 major copyright laws have been enacted in the US, two of which directly impact the term of copyright for the 1978 prayer book.
In the context of the proposed resolution #12, it spoke only to the copyright of trial text and did not necessarily extend to the official copyright policy of the Prayer Book. Read in certain light, the canon states that the copyright of trial liturgies is held by the office of the Custodian of the Book of Common Prayer. Once a liturgy is adopted as part of the full prayer book, the copyright in the liturgy would revert back to the holder of the copyright of the Prayer Book. In 1967, copyright required an affirmative action to claim copyright. In 1992, one of the laws Congress passed, retroactively, restored copyright for all works that had not previously asserted copyright, such as our beloved Prayer Book. Nevertheless, this is the only canon to specifically address copyright for the entire Episcopal Church.
Copyright law is full of nuance. Copyright for updated versions is only applied to new material within the updated version. Additionally, copyright only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. As we think about content creation in the church, whether content created by task forces of the General Convention or other bodies, we want to make sure that we are creating equitable policies around creator rights. As a significantly volunteer supported organization, much of our work is done by lay volunteers who are not subject to work for hire language that may apply to clergy and paid staff, or that would be standard if working with a publishing authority. There is no notion of copyright transfer or recognition of potential tension between content creators on interim bodies and the content they create to which the Episcopal Church claims copyright.
There is certainly a reason to have a custodian for the Book of Common Prayer, regardless of the form that the Book should one day take. But it is also important for that custodian to understand what it means for the church or themselves to “relinquish” copyright. The church needs to understand which text copyrights are protected and which texts are not by virtue of being “authorized”. The big unasked question is that if copyright is truly relinquished and the authorized text is essentially viewed as “public domain”, how and why has the church stopped “unauthorized” copies of the book of common prayer from being offered as digital assets? Canon II.3.8 merely says that such copies should be duly noted as being “unauthorized”, not that they should not exist or be shared in instances when the “authorized” version of the Book of Common Prayer is not required.
The Task Force would be a good place to debate if the church would be better served by designating a specific copyleft license (more commonly known as creative commons) for the Book of Common Prayer and fully authorized translations. More information about standard creative commons licenses can be found at the Creative Commons website.
In addition, digital technology has brought with it streaming technology. The church should have a set of best practices for all parishes looking at streaming as it relates to the authorized material, both the Book of Common Prayer (and related text) and the Hymnal.
Lastly, the church has many symbols and marks that are viewed and maintained as Trademarks. Trademark rights in the United States are vastly more expansive than in other jurisdictions of the church. Among the bodies within the church that have trademarks, there is no central office for obtaining the necessary permissions or directions on how to best use the various marks. As Task Forces of General Convention or other Interim Bodies submit reports and documents, a better understanding of the marking of these documents, both which trademarks and symbols to use and the copyright language the documents are published under, should be documented for future bodies. A Task Force should start their work with clear guidance on branding and marking for any material the interim body produces. This type of document is standard in an organization of our size.
Other forms of Intellectual Property such as Patents and Trade Secrets are less relevant to the work of the Church. Other resolutions seek to address Data Rights, which are tangentially tied to copyright. This Task Force would do well to reach out to any other interim bodies looking at data and research to understand the Intellectual Property needs for an increased data collection and curation effort.
Note: this resolution and/or its explanation contains external references, such as URLs of websites, that may not be in the required languages of General Convention. Because of copyright restrictions, the General Convention cannot provide translations. However, your web browser may be able to provide a machine translation into another language. If you need assistance with this, please contact gc.support@episcopalchurch.org.
Explanation
Canon II.3.6.b was written in 1967 (Resolution #12 from the Report of the Standing Liturgical Commission) well before the internet existed and before open source or copyleft policies were created. It certainly existed before personal computers became so small, they could be held in the palm of your hand and offer direct connection to two or three gathered individuals across miles and miles of land. And in that time, 4 major copyright laws have been enacted in the US, two of which directly impact the term of copyright for the 1978 prayer book.
In the context of the proposed resolution #12, it spoke only to the copyright of trial text and did not necessarily extend to the official copyright policy of the Prayer Book. Read in certain light, the canon states that the copyright of trial liturgies is held by the office of the Custodian of the Book of Common Prayer. Once a liturgy is adopted as part of the full prayer book, the copyright in the liturgy would revert back to the holder of the copyright of the Prayer Book. In 1967, copyright required an affirmative action to claim copyright. In 1992, one of the laws Congress passed, retroactively, restored copyright for all works that had not previously asserted copyright, such as our beloved Prayer Book. Nevertheless, this is the only canon to specifically address copyright for the entire Episcopal Church.
Copyright law is full of nuance. Copyright for updated versions is only applied to new material within the updated version. Additionally, copyright only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. As we think about content creation in the church, whether content created by task forces of the General Convention or other bodies, we want to make sure that we are creating equitable policies around creator rights. As a significantly volunteer supported organization, much of our work is done by lay volunteers who are not subject to work for hire language that may apply to clergy and paid staff, or that would be standard if working with a publishing authority. There is no notion of copyright transfer or recognition of potential tension between content creators on interim bodies and the content they create to which the Episcopal Church claims copyright.
There is certainly a reason to have a custodian for the Book of Common Prayer, regardless of the form that the Book should one day take. But it is also important for that custodian to understand what it means for the church or themselves to “relinquish” copyright. The church needs to understand which text copyrights are protected and which texts are not by virtue of being “authorized”. The big unasked question is that if copyright is truly relinquished and the authorized text is essentially viewed as “public domain”, how and why has the church stopped “unauthorized” copies of the book of common prayer from being offered as digital assets? Canon II.3.8 merely says that such copies should be duly noted as being “unauthorized”, not that they should not exist or be shared in instances when the “authorized” version of the Book of Common Prayer is not required.
The Task Force would be a good place to debate if the church would be better served by designating a specific copyleft license (more commonly known as creative commons) for the Book of Common Prayer and fully authorized translations. More information about standard creative commons licenses can be found at the Creative Commons website.
In addition, digital technology has brought with it streaming technology. The church should have a set of best practices for all parishes looking at streaming as it relates to the authorized material, both the Book of Common Prayer (and related text) and the Hymnal.
Lastly, the church has many symbols and marks that are viewed and maintained as Trademarks. Trademark rights in the United States are vastly more expansive than in other jurisdictions of the church. Among the bodies within the church that have trademarks, there is no central office for obtaining the necessary permissions or directions on how to best use the various marks. As Task Forces of General Convention or other Interim Bodies submit reports and documents, a better understanding of the marking of these documents, both which trademarks and symbols to use and the copyright language the documents are published under, should be documented for future bodies. A Task Force should start their work with clear guidance on branding and marking for any material the interim body produces. This type of document is standard in an organization of our size.
Other forms of Intellectual Property such as Patents and Trade Secrets are less relevant to the work of the Church. Other resolutions seek to address Data Rights, which are tangentially tied to copyright. This Task Force would do well to reach out to any other interim bodies looking at data and research to understand the Intellectual Property needs for an increased data collection and curation effort.
Note: this resolution and/or its explanation contains external references, such as URLs of websites, that may not be in the required languages of General Convention. Because of copyright restrictions, the General Convention cannot provide translations. However, your web browser may be able to provide a machine translation into another language. If you need assistance with this, please contact gc.support@episcopalchurch.org.