Missale Romanum

  • Thread starter Thread starter henrikhank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

henrikhank

Guest
Where do I find the latest edition of Missale Romanum (in Latin) online?
 
It is not available online because it is copyrighted. You will have to purchase or borrow it in printed book form.
 
Elizium23 said:
It is not available online because it is copyrighted. You will have to purchase or borrow it in printed book form.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it is copyrighted??? I’ve seen lots of republished copies online. Even fully translated Mass Propers in english. They’re all a 10 sec google search away.
 
henrikhank said:
And where have you gotten this information?
Click to expand...
From the link ProVobis provides, “! “ Copyright ” apud Administrationem Patrimonii Sedis Apostolicæ in Civitate VaticanaVenditio operis fit cura Librariæ Editricis Vaticanæ(Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano)”

I am not sure whether the Scribd file is legitimately licensed or not. If it is, then good.
 
Elizium23 said:
From the link ProVobis provides, “! “ Copyright ” apud Administrationem Patrimonii Sedis Apostolicæ in Civitate VaticanaVenditio operis fit cura Librariæ Editricis Vaticanæ(Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano)”

I am not sure whether the Scribd file is legitimately licensed or not. If it is, then good.
Click to expand...
I believe this is covered under the “fair use” provisions of copyright law. See the explanation for this:

copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

but remember this is under English law. I’m not sure how far Vatican copyright laws extend but I’m almost sure they allow one to view the Latin originals for educational purposes or use as reference.

The ICEL or USSCB owns the copyrights to the English translation, I believe.
 
ProVobis said:
I believe this is covered under the “fair use” provisions of copyright law. See the explanation for this:

copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

but remember this is under English law. I’m not sure how far Vatican copyright laws extend but I’m almost sure they allow one to view the Latin originals for educational purposes or use as reference.

The ICEL or USSCB owns the copyrights to the English translation, I believe.
Click to expand...
Exactly what kind of “fair use” argument could you conceive for placing the whole and entire work online? Fair use is for educational or satire use of a small portion of the copyrighted work, not the whole shebang free for anyone to download.
 
Elizium23 said:
Exactly what kind of “fair use” argument could you conceive for placing the whole and entire work online? Fair use is for educational or satire use of a small portion of the copyrighted work, not the whole shebang free for anyone to download.
Click to expand...
Fair point. According to wiki,
Scribd has often been accused of copyright infringement. In March 2009, Scribd launched a copyright management system and has made upgrades to the system including the addition of OCR. The New York Times reported in May 2009 that Scribd hosted pirated works by authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin.[33]
In September 2009, American author Elaine Scott alleged that Scribd “shamelessly profits from the stolen copyrighted works of innumerable authors.”[34] Her attorneys Joe Sibley and Kiwi Camara sought class action status in their efforts to win damages from Scribd for allegedly “egregious copyright infringement.”[35][36] On May 11, 2009, Motoko Rich, writing in the New York Times, reported on Scribd’s hosting of pirated works. Sibley Camara filed a class action lawsuit against Scribd, accusing it of calculated copyright infringement for profit.[37] The suit was dropped in July 2010.[38][39]
In 2007, one year after its inception, Scribd was served with 25 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices.[40] The total number of DMCA notices that have been served to the company is unknown, but, on 8 January 2013, a single author Steven Saylor notified Scribd of 17 unauthorized uploads of his copyrighted work.[41]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribd

One can conclude that if there is profit motive, then copyrights then are definitely infringed. A lot of works are copyrighted and placed out there in cyberworld. One can presume that the owner has given permission for such, but not always. A lot of fuzziness there.
 
Elizium23 said:
From the link ProVobis provides, “! “ Copyright ” apud Administrationem Patrimonii Sedis Apostolicæ in Civitate VaticanaVenditio operis fit cura Librariæ Editricis Vaticanæ(Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano)”

I am not sure whether the Scribd file is legitimately licensed or not. If it is, then good.
Click to expand...
Missale Romanum is a 500 year old publication, assuming it was created the day Pope Paul V standardised Mass for the RC Church, it could be even earlier. So even if it were copyrighted, any protection it has since lost.

EU Laws only protect media for a period of 70 years and I believe 50 years for most other parts of the world.

And if we’re talking the Missale Romanum of 1962, technically it would have 19 more years of copyright under EU laws, but it is still a derivative work and the original publication has lost its legal protection hundreds of years ago.

legalzoom.com/intellectual-property-rights/copyrights/what-are-derivative-works-under
 
ProVobis said:
I believe this is covered under the “fair use” provisions of copyright law. See the explanation for this:

copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

but remember this is under English law. I’m not sure how far Vatican copyright laws extend but I’m almost sure they allow one to view the Latin originals for educational purposes or use as reference.

The ICEL or USSCB owns the copyrights to the English translation, I believe.
Click to expand...
Nope, the Vatican would technically still own the English translation. Translations are considered derivative works under law but as I’ve mentioned above, the rights are invalid by now.
 
nezzz said:
legalzoom.com/intellectual-property-rights/copyrights/what-are-derivative-works-under
Click to expand...
So according to this reference,
… In order for your derivative work work to receive its own copyright, it must be different enough from the original to qualify as a new piece of work. Simply making minor changes to an original, copyrighted work does not constitute a new derivative work under copyright law…
Click to expand...
The copyrights of Missale Romanum of 2002 don’t reset to 70 years, but are due to expire in 1970 (the year the 1970 Missal was promulgated) +70, or 2040? I think we can agree that the changes in 1970 were substantially different to constitute a new copyright.

Something doesn’t sound right. (But then I don’t have educated ears. :))
 
ProVobis said:
So according to this reference,

The copyrights of Missale Romanum of 2002 don’t reset to 70 years, but are due to expire in 1970+70, or 2040?

Something doesn’t sound right. (But then I don’t have educated ears. :))
Click to expand...
As I’ve said, the current Missale Romanum(in latin text) is a derivative from the work that was made in the 1200s to 1500s. Unless it is a radically different missal now, there is no real legal protection to the work now and if the Vatican were to sue someone for putting it online I don’t think they would win at all.
 
nezzz said:
As I’ve said, the current Missale Romanum(in latin text) is a derivative from the work that was made in the 1200s to 1500s. Unless it is a radically different missal now, there is no real legal protection to the work now and if the Vatican were to sue someone for putting it online I don’t think they would win at all.
Click to expand...
I suppose this could be answered if one contacted the appropriate authority?
 
nezzz said:
As I’ve said, the current Missale Romanum(in latin text) is a derivative from the work that was made in the 1200s to 1500s. Unless it is a radically different missal now, there is no real legal protection to the work now and if the Vatican were to sue someone for putting it online I don’t think they would win at all.
Click to expand...
This will come as a shock to the Holy See, which has a copyright date noted in the current missal.
 
Chatter163 said:
This will come as a shock to the Holy See, which has a copyright date noted in the current missal.
Click to expand...
The question is whether that date is reflected of a derivative or not, according to nezzz’s reference. If MIssale Romanum of 1970 is not a derivative, then my understanding is that the copyright is reset to 70 years as of 1970.

That said, I find it hard to believe the liturgical books of 1962 aren’t covered under copyright protection.
 
nezzz said:
Nope, the Vatican would technically still own the English translation. Translations are considered derivative works under law but as I’ve mentioned above, the rights are invalid by now.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, the copyrights have been sold or transferred to the ICEL, because the latter claim 2010 copyrights to the translation.

icelweb.org/copyright.htm

Note, however, that they no longer collect royalties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top