# Romans 13:1 and Bible Copyright Laws



## sevenzedek (May 3, 2011)

In an effort to comply with Romans 13:1 and the copyright laws that govern the use of the NKJV, I found some challenges that make compliance very difficult. I memorize God's word regularly by using an electronic recorder. The way I do it apparently violates the copyright laws. Writing out scripture in a notebook is another way that I could memorize scripture, but this way violates the law as well.

Also, I have found some other challenges to compliance. If I wanted to print a tract to minister to the lost and quoted more scripture than my words, I would be violating the copyright laws. Permission could be obtained. However, Nelson Publishers fails to communicate with me (e.g., it has been about a month since emailing them--they are too slow for progress).

I thought about switching to the KJV because it is not under copyright protection in the USA. However, my church uses the NKJV and memorizing and using the KJV may or may not be best for my infrequent teaching duties (I may teach more at some point).

How would folks here at the PB recommend that I get around this issue? Should I just memorize and use the KJV anyway (Perhaps this would not be a big issue for my congregation when quoting from memory)? Or should I use the NKJV in a way that violates the *letter* of the law of the land while obeying the spirit of the law of the land?

Thanks for any wisdom you all might give. I am posting the Nelson Publishers' copyright law that pertains to my dilemma as it appears on their website.


> I.	GENERAL STATEMENT
> 
> A.	USES NOT REQUIRING WRITTEN PERMISSION.
> Printed, Visual and Electronic Uses:
> ...


----------



## steadfast7 (May 3, 2011)

I'm pretty sure it applies to official, or public use of the text. This law would technically forbid anyone from reading out loud to himself, which is ridiculous. I suggest John Frame's article on the issue.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (May 3, 2011)

I think the copyright laws do not apply to private things like reading and personal notebooks.


----------



## Jack K (May 3, 2011)

Ditto. Don't worry about your personal use. Only the tract is an issue.

Regarding the tract... this is one of those cases where you are, admirably, abiding by the letter of the law even though your intended use may not violate the spirit of the law. In such a case, I think you'd be on solid moral ground to include a substantial amount of non-Bible fine print on the back of your tract (including maybe information about your church, who printed the tract, and of course the fair use notice from Nelson) to bring up your word count and make the tract "legal."


----------



## sevenzedek (May 3, 2011)

What a shame that the secular government of our day must limit and govern the use of God's word for Christians. Paul didn't like secular government judging Christian matters in his day either. The more I think about the this issue, the more it bothers me. God's word should govern secular law--not the other way around. Perhaps I am being over zealous.


----------



## Edward (May 3, 2011)

sevenzedek said:


> God's word should govern secular law--not the other way around.



Like Copyright law finding its moral basis in Exodus 20:15?


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (May 3, 2011)

Personal use is fine by U.S. Copyright law (so don't worry if you're using electronic devices to memorize the entire bible). It only becomes a problem if you intend to publish works using verses from a specific translation. Most companies permit use of up to a certain number of scriptures without their written consent (normally between 100-250 verses), but after that number is hit, you need to write for permission.

The copyright is there so that someone will try not to claim that translation of scripture as their own and sell it for their own profit. Publications like Crossways have invested an enormous amount of time and resources to put the translations out there, and they do deserve protection as compensation for those resources spent.

But that's my take.


----------

