.png)
The official 1986 translation of Luther's Small Catechism by the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod ought to be public domain for all of our congregations to use without royalty fees being paid to CPH. That is my opinion.
One of Luther's major concerns was that we, as congregations and pastors, adopt one form of the Small Catechism and stick with it year in and year out for the sake of teaching the faith and building a common language. It is destructive to synodical harmony when each congregation has its own translation or each entity of the synod has its own translation because the royalty fees of CPH are punitive.
The Concordia Catechetical Academy of Peace Lutheran Church (an official auxiliary of our congregation) was formed to promote Luther's Small Catechism and faithful Lutheran Catechesis to the Church at large. While one could argue that the CCA produces catechetical materials "commercially" our use of the Small Catechism is NOT for profit. CPH was instituted to be of support to the congregations and pastors of the synod in preaching the Gospel and teaching the faith, but as everyone at CPH knows, it does cost money to produce materials. The "modest fee" that we are charged for use of the Small Catechism is 10% of the retail cost of whatever volume the Small Catechism appears in. Our catechumen edition retails for $18, so our fee per volume to CPH is $1.80. Our Catechist Edition (which has exactly the same amount of copyrighted material in it as the catechumen edition) retails for $40 per volume, so our fee per volume is $4.00. Since the copyrighted material in both volumes is the same, this means that Concordia Publishing House is "profiting" off of what I have written in the Catechist edition to the tune of $2.10. I would prefer not to be lectured about our "commercial use" of the Catechism.
We are a congregation of the Synod. We produce catechetical materials to help the church. We give away catechetical materials to foreign Lutheran Church bodies and missions. We are not in this to "make money" commercially. We have been told that charging for use of our translation of the catechism is just the way business is done in the publishing business, yet it is only Concordia Publishing House that treats us this way.
We have made use of the New King James Version in all of our materials since 1997. Thomas Nelson Publishers charges us nothing for the use of their translation as long as we follow their copyright guidelines, which we are more than happy to do. Thomas Nelson Publishers recognizes that such generous copyright permissions ONLY ENHANCES THE PURCHASE OF NKJV Bibles and materials. The same would be true for CPH when it comes to the Small Catechism and the liturgy and prayers in LSB.
We, the Concordia Catechetical Academy, encourages our clients to purchase such things as Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, The Treasury of Daily Prayer, and the "Blue hardcover Catechism" from CPH (which contains the synodical explanation to the Small Catechism), and many other fine resources that CPH produces.
There was a time, when the CCA first started its work, that we were not altogether certain that CPH would be producing the kind of fine confessional materials we have seen over the last ten to fifteen years. I am very grateful for the work that CPH has done in recent times. But the CCA is no threat to CPH, in fact, what we do only serves to support the confessional materials they publish.
The Small Catechism, Book of Concord, Liturgy and Prayers of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod belong to all of us. These works are very different from original works by authors where copyright protection and royalties are appropriate. But when it comes to the Catechism, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Liturgy it is my prayer that we would stop charging each other royalties for their use. We would all benefit. But most of all, the capacity to preach and teach the Gospel would be enhanced.
Thanks for letting us know about this, Pastor Bender. And thanks for your excellent leadership in our Synod. Your consistent confession is an encouragement to me each and every week as we use your faithful materials at Immanuel.
ReplyDeleteI ran into this problem when in 1994 Project Wittenberg began to put works by Luther and other Lutherans on the internet. They would not allow a single word be put on the internet. So I went home and translated the Small Catechism over the weekend. It is still there at: http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/LutherSmallCatechismSmithEdition.pdf
ReplyDeleteMany years later, they would not allow the distribution of the older Spanish catechism in Latin America. A team of translators prepared a new one and added new expository questions to meet the unique needs of worldwide Spanish culture. It ended up printed in a Spanish version of the Bible by the American Bible Society.
Thank you Pr. Bender for thinking like a churchman. TW
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that this whole discussion is still directed more at the LCMS than CPH. If the LCMS directed in convention that its copyright be administered just as it is now BUT without charge to auxiliaries of the Synod, RSOs, and non-profit enterprises, then CPH would have to abide by the decision of Synod. As I understand it, CPH administers these copyrights as an agent of Synod.
ReplyDeleteWhile I know that such is not the case of Pr Bender and most others, one of the great problems is ensuring that the catechism is used as is and not edited for content. For example, I was at a Eucharist some many years ago when the source book was LBW but the parish LCMS and the Pastor had edited the confession of sins so that it read we WERE in bondage to sin and not ARE as it is copyrighted.
While some might think this a small thing, it is a bigger issue than you might think. As one who has composed a hymn text or two, I have seen my copyrighted texts in print with editorial changes to my text and even an additional stanza -- none with my knowledge or approval yet with my name attached to the copyright line. I am not unsympathetic to this problem and wonder if this is not one of the core issues for the whole copyright decision with respect to the CPH materials under discussion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCPH has not EVER added a verse to a hymn. We do NOT have the authority to do that. That would have been the Commission on Worship correct?
DeleteAgain, the Catechism can be used within any LCMS congregation, it is when a resource is created and broadcast or sold outside of the congregation that the issue arises.
Bruce Kintz
Dear Larry:
ReplyDeleteI think that some pastors and congregations will alter the words used in the hymnal whether or not they are copyrighted. The fact you saw this happen even though LBW is copyrighted is proof that the copyright will not prevent alteration of the texts. The same is true for your hymns being changed. It is like trying to stop crime by passing gun laws. The only people hurt by the copyright laws in this case are those who obey them. Is anyone really going to sue a church or pastor for adding a hymn stanza?
However, I think Dr. Bender is making the point that the catechism, confessions, and service books are in a different category than modern works that are being penned today (and are a source of income for modern authors). These works should not be treated the same way as one of your hymns because of their age and role in the church.
It seems that CPH has already made it clear that they see this as a money matter, whereas I believe Dr. Bender makes a great argument that freeing the Catechism will not hinder CPH sales, and in fact will likely increase sales (which may at first seem counter-intuitive, but it is like a government increasing revenues by decreasing taxes).
The bottom line is that for most authors and pastors, we are not going to pay CPH's fee, and will instead simply use language that is not under copyright - thus further fracturing the unity of our synod.
When a pastor is scolded (if not threatened) for blogging the collect of the week (!), there is something terribly wrong with our "walk together." When this pastor has to resort to using ELS collects or others must come up with new translations of the confessional documents to work around this situation, it speaks volumes about our priorities as a synod.
The Other Larry
Anytime the copyright of a publishing house hits the public domain, the publishing house revenue decreases because of all the others that can print it at will. Think of all the public domain books out there.
DeleteBruce Kintz
Here is another thing to consider:
ReplyDeleteCopyrights and Trademarks are entirely different things. If a company does not protect their trademark (logos, etc) they can loose the right to the trademark. Copyrights are entirely different. A company, like CPH, can trademark a work and then grant rights for usage as widely as they so choose and it does not affect the status of the copyrighted material.
Here is a compromise: CPH keeps the 1986 translation under copyright, but grants full and complete rights to any LCMS congregation to use regardless of the purpose so long as the integrity of the next is maintained.
Which is my point... is it too late to memorialize the convention to do just that?
ReplyDeleteThe SID passed a resolution at last year's convention to this effect.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to a resolution, you may be up against higher powers. The CID tried to pass a similar resolution, and the Synod president himself rose to speak against it. But if enough districts want this, I'm sure it could get done.
DeleteBut isn't the great irony here that McCain clearly sees value in public domain works, and uses them for himself? Did he not take something that was in the public domain, change a few words, and then sell it? And I'm fine with that. I think it's great for there to be more Lutheran material out there, even when someone makes a buck off it.
Let's suppose that the catechism was released to the public, and -- horror of horrors -- someone took it and produced a better catechism and charged for it. This could possibly mean a loss of revenue for CPH. But is the threat of better material that teaches the faith really a bad thing, even if CPH loses a buck?
Is the Synod made for CPH, or CPH for the Synod? I agree with Rev Petersen's earlier remark that he would rather subsidize CPH than put our doctrine, liturgy, and other material behind a paywall. We should be giving that stuff out as often and as freely as we can.
Scot, let's take Paul out of this discussion. I will do my best to articulate a response.
DeleteThere has never been any subsidy for CPH.
I remain in your service.
Good Morning?
ReplyDeleteMay I attempt a response?
It really is not as much a "money" thing with CPH as you might believe. True, historically we hold copyrights of Intellectual Property on "behalf" of the LCMS, not "in spite" of it.
We already have broad permissions for the Catechism to be used by any pastor, within his congregation. It is when someone wants to produce resources and broadcast them or sell them for money that this discussion comes up because it dilutes the effectiveness of an entity that holds a copyright. It is whole sections of things in particular.
The Bible would be another example. One has to pay for usage of the Bible text if whatever resource being created will be substantially published outside of a church as well. CPH pays for the usage of text from any published matter that is not within the LCMS' perview.
This is a Kingdom of the Left issue with copyright laws etc but granted to your publishing arm by the LCMS to differentiate itself from any other publisher. The Catechism is in, with and under everything we create on your behalf. Day School Curriculum, Confirmation Curriculum, Sunday School, VBS etc. Without this small differentiator we would not be needed.
Let me repeat what I said in reference to Sam's note, pastors can already use the catechism within their churches, it is when they decide to become a publisher outside that CPH says whether or not we have already created the product or would charge a fee for usage.
Please do not view CPH as the enemy on this matter. I have always thought you all were supporters of our products. I will say that it is my opinion that this matter could snowball negatively and have a lasting impact on CPH. We produce a complete line of products and services that are in many ways interdependent. Much like other services synod provides we exist to be here for you.
Please forgive me for attempting to answer this question for I know that this is not convincing in any way. Also please forgive those who scolded in the past. I do not make that a practice.
Gentlemen, I do not often get to post to blogs and I became aware of this conversation because one of you alerted me. Yes, this issue came up in Southern Ill by a frend of mine who put it forward. It also came up three years ago as well.
Whatever the Lord decides on this matter I wish you all the best.
Blessings on your day!
Bruce Kintz
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you Dave for the support. One of the MBA courses on Ethics involved the usage of the Internet and all social media yes.
DeleteI would indeed like us to walk together in forgiveness and pray for the removal of any ill-will that has already transpired. I am here to do the best I can in service to the churches and schools in our LCMS. I am proud to serve you and I mean that sincerely.
I have been here now for 15 years and each day is a new blessing, as is today, in making contact with all of the folks on this blog.
I hope if someone needs me though they will alert me!
I've deleted my earlier comment. It was, I am afraid, "beating a dead horse," even though Mr. Kintz responded graciously. I am sincerely thankful for his response and glad for the conversations re-starting.
Delete- Dave Petersen
Clarification: I meant I was beating a dead horse. I was beating a dead horse, belaboring a point. Despite my rather boorish attitude, Mr. Kintz responded graciously.
Delete- Petersen
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone here or in any other thread related to this topic views CPH as the enemy, nor do I think your statement "I have always thought you all were supporters of our products" is charitable or necessary. You are conversing with several brothers who promote the you-know-what out of many of the fine products CPH has put out, and whose congregations have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on those products. We may not support all the products put out by CPH (and you really wouldn't expect us too, right?), but we are extremely supportive of a great many of them.
Of course, all of that is moot, since we're really not talking here about supporting or not supporting products, but a very specific policy related to some products. We should stick to that, I think.
Sticking to that, what I can't wrap my mind around is this idea that someone like Pr. Bender is viewed by CPH as an entity out to broadcast and make a profit from the excellent materials he has produced, and how CPH must protect itself by charging a modest fee for his usage of the copyrighted catechism within those materials. Perhaps you could read his post again and point out where you think he is specifically in error?
Heath,
I vote that you get rid of this confusing commenting format, where replies to replies cause us to scroll up and down searching for who said what when we see that additional comments have been made. It's very annoying. Just my opinion/vote. ;)
New profile data...
ReplyDeleteThanks Thomas, I still believe you are all supporters.
ReplyDeleteI also am just discussing current practice, I never said that Pastor Bender is in error.
Dear Bruce:
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your willingness to address these issues and talk to us in a civil and Christian manner in this forum! I think this is what we have needed all along, and I do believe we are all on the same side. Certainly there are creative solutions out there that will benefit everyone: pastors, teachers, catechumens, authors, congregations, and CPH.
I know I'm not alone in my appreciation for the quality materials coming from CPH of late, and I know that doesn't happen by accident.
Hopefully this ongoing dialog will really benefit everyone involved, and ultimately benefit the preaching of the Gospel and the teaching of the faith. So, thanks once again.
Peace in Christ!
Thanks Larry! By the way, my personal telephone number is available anytime. Talking seems always to be better than writing for some reason!
ReplyDeleteBruce,
ReplyDeleteThanks Thomas, I still believe you are all supporters.
Good. Thanks.
I also am just discussing current practice, I never said that Pastor Bender is in error.
My apologies for not being clearer. What I meant was that Pr. Bender has written a detailed post explaining the ins and outs of his obligations toward CPH regarding the catechetical materials he has produced, and has voiced his opinion on why he disagrees with these obligations. The reason he entered this discussion is because his name was brought up in a previous thread on this topic, and the reason given for charging him a modest fee was because he was using the copyrighted catechism for commercial use to make a profit. In his response here, he makes it vividly clear that this is not the case, and that the reason he's been given for why CPH needs to charge him is because this is just the way business is done in the publishing business, although he notes that CPH (his own publishing house) is the only one who actually treats him this way with regard to his materials. He also states his opinion at the end of his response (which is shared by many):
The Small Catechism, Book of Concord, Liturgy and Prayers of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod belong to all of us. These works are very different from original works by authors where copyright protection and royalties are appropriate. But when it comes to the Catechism, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Liturgy it is my prayer that we would stop charging each other royalties for their use. We would all benefit. But most of all, the capacity to preach and teach the Gospel would be enhanced.
I didn't mean to suggest that you had said that Pr. Bender was in error. What I meant was that, since you have been gracious enough to enter this conversation, perhaps you could respond to the specifics of Pr. Bender's post.
Pax!
Thanks again Thomas, I am not sure I can say more than what I have already said in my lengthy post above.
DeleteI apolgize for any perception that our CPH is treating someone poorly as this is not the intent. In my opinion the sentence you mention could have stopped at just "commercial use." (leaving off "to make a profit")
Usage within the congregation has been and is just fine.
Obviously, we may disagree on the merits of the case but I understand and respect his position.
Bruce, thank you for your continued dialogue on this topic. I must admit it is refreshing to see this discussion take place in a very civil tone, not just with you but with all involved so far.
DeleteAs a layperson with a passing interest in copyright issues as they relate to content creation and distribution, I have a question about this quote from your primary response above.
"The Catechism is in, with and under everything we create on your behalf. Day School Curriculum, Confirmation Curriculum, Sunday School, VBS etc. Without this small differentiator we would not be needed."
Should I take that statement to mean that if CPH did not hold copyright on the 1986 Small Catechism, that it would then not be able to produce the above materials at all? Is that an accurate conclusion for me to draw from the statement? The materials that I have purchased in recent years (and I have purchased A LOT...for one person at least) have been of excellent quality and extremely valuable in my own education and in catechizing my family. If the above statement is true, I'm missing the connection between the statement and the conclusion I have drawn. Why must copyright of a portion of the materials dictate whether or not the materials can even be produced or determine whether CPH is needed? It seems to me that CPH could continue to produce the excellent materials it has produced even if the SC were placed in the public domain because the other materials that make up those works would still be copyrighted and protected.
Am I missing something? I do hope to hear from you on this, and please read this as the honest question that it is.
Peter Slayton
Peter, As I sit here in my office I am staring at my favorite books.....from all sorts of companies. One set is now being made by at least 15 different sources. Just look to those as examples of dilution. Yes, it would mean that CPH would eventually be unable to create the catechetical resources you are used to and compete with the myriads of others also doing that. Anything that anyone can just print off these days will be more expedient.
DeleteI am at this point going to sign off of this thread as it has been a day anad a half now. I have answered about every which way I can, as best as I can. If anyone wants to contact me after this my personal cell phone number is available for you at 314-267-1904.
God's Blessings to all of you. Please pray for CPH if you would be so inclined.
Bruce, thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. God's blessings to you as you go about your busy day. And thank you for the work you do to get good theology out to us.
DeletePeter Slayton
Dear Larry,
ReplyDeletePastor Messer, quoted above, is quite correct in his assertion that I did not ask to inject myself into this conversation but felt compelled to do so in light of things that were said about me and the CCA.
In the interest of accuracy, however, while I appreciate the honor of being referred to as "Dr. Bender," I do not have an earned doctorate. Thanks.
In Christ,
Pastor Bender
Dear Peter, so noted and corrected! Your fellow servant, +Larry
DeletePastor Bender, I apologize to you personally for things that were said about you and CCA in the past especially if they originated at CPH. Although I was unaware of them at the time I would have attempted to stop them. Please forgive me and CPH I pray!
ReplyDeleteBlessings on your day!!!
Dear brother, be of good cheer! I have nothing but forgiveness and goodwill for you and the devoted servants at Concordia Publishing House. I accept your apology, though I'm not sure what the offenses might have been. It is possible for Christian brothers of goodwill to disagree on matters such as these without taking personal offense. We have worked with CPH in the past and we will continue to do so in the future, regardless of what the policies are that govern the use of the Catechism.
DeleteIn Christ,
Pastor Bender