The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has defined Intellectual Property (IP) as the “creations of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names, and images used in commerce”. WIPO has classified intellectual into two categories: Industrial rights which include patents, trademarks, and Copyright which include literary and artistic works.
I prefer the classification of IP into three branches namely- patents, copyright, and trademarks. The difference between these three branches are:
As stated above copyright law is concerned with the protection expressions of ideas which include literary and artistic works. Literary and artistic works include books, lectures, dramatic works, musical composition, drawings, photographic works, illustrations, etc. Copyright law is concerned with the protection of the expressions of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. In essence, copyright law is not concerned with protecting ideas but protects the use of the idea.
Copyright affords the author or owner of the work to have economic and moral rights. Economic rights afford the author or owner to derive financial reward from the work and moral rights afford the author or owner to preserve and protect their link with the work.
Okay now that we have gotten the basic principles out of the way, let us discuss the point about whether sacred works can be owned?
Arguments have been made that no individual can claim ownership on religious works such as the bible where the content was produced more than a thousand years ago. The Berne Convention states that copyright is only assigned to the author or owners of the work. In respect to religious works, it is not always clear who the rights-holder is, so how is possible that bibles have been and are continued to be copyrighted? Simple the message in the bible is not what is copyrighted but the interpretation is. The Bible itself cannot be copyrighted but its translations and interpretations are. Remember for a literary work to be protected it does not necessarily need to be original or unique work but the expression (in this case it would be the interpretation and or translation) must be an original creation by the author.
The reason for having/granting copyright on the bible goes to the core of copyright law:
Firstly, it grants the copyright holder financial rights to make some commercial gain from their interpretation and or creative input.
Secondly, it protects the integrity of the word (moral rights). A person cannot change the text to the bible to suit their own needs or opinions.
Some versions of the bible are in the public domain, which means there is no copyright protection exists for that particular work, the King James Version is one those bibles. Bibles like the Good News Bible, Modern King James Version, International Standard Version, etc. are still being protected by copyright law.
We live in a society where some bibles are in the public domain and some are still protected by copyright. The right to access to religion is not hindered in this instance but is it morally okay to grant protection for the expressions of sacred text?
I honestly do not know, you tell me.
