Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics - Overly Restrictive Copyright?

[Brock Organ]

As unabashedly wonderful, profitable and edifying as the English translation of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics has been, there has been one aspect of it that seems less than helpful to a person who (like myself) would like to frequently cite Bavinck in response to questions on religious discussion boards, debate forums, facebook and google groups, etc.:

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Herman Bavinck, John Bolt and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Prolegomena (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 4.

Is this overly restrictive, or even legally tenable? IANAL, but do the explicit terms cited here conflict with an established "fair use"[1] doctrine? As a believer, I'm interested in obeying the spirit of the copyright law, and not looking for a corner case to justify an abuse or to injure the copyright holder ... but these terms seem explicitly draconian.

Best Regards!

[1] Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[reaganmarsh]

I can't speak to its legal ramifications, but I can say this: that seems to be the standard copyright language nowadays.

However, I have a hard time seeing that a publisher (particularly of academic theological works) doesn't foresee that their book will be cited, analyzed, and quoted in both formal & informal written theological argumentation and teaching, sermons, research work (ie, a thesis or dissertation), and Sunday School classrooms.

So you raise an interesting point!

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Their language is quite restrictive but pretty standard and impossible to realistically enforce. And they know that. What they want is language tough enough to ensure they can potentially go after anyone really abusing the copyright (i.e. "bigger fish").

Now, if you wanted to take a chapter out of the book and publish it as a tract; you should contact the publisher and ask for permission. I have done this on more than one occasion. If you let them know (1) you aren't selling the material, (2) you aren't altering the material in any form, and (3) you intend to give full credit to the publisher in the publication, they usually don't have any problem with your use of their material.

 

[jogri17]

The courts have ruled constitantly that there is always of ''Fair use'' clause. The USA has one of the worst copyright systems (as well as patent) in the world.
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.
17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So the law is a set of principles. If the owner of the copyright feels violated, he may sue and Courts determine it on a case by case basis. Sometimes various institutions have their own policies for work, government, or education.

 

[jogri17]

It is to be remembered that "Fair use" is not a law, but a legal defense that the courts support under the First Ammendment. I personally would like to see a sound modern systematic theology in the public domain. I wish someone would buy the rights to berkhof and release it in the public domain.

 

[Brock Organ]

It is to be remembered that "Fair use" is not a law, but a legal defense that the courts support under the First Ammendment. I personally would like to see a sound modern systematic theology in the public domain. I wish someone would buy the rights to berkhof and release it in the public domain.

Hi Joseph, its not an insurmountable situation; I find that I can often quote relevant answers from AH Strong's Systematic Theology (which is in the public domain), for example, I just quoted his objections to an idealistic pantheism a few days ago; Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology is also similarly available though I just don't have a history of referencing it as often ...

*sigh* ... but Bavinck's insights are of such a high quality and character, that I would like to offer them more frequently and public-ally as well ... I am very thankful for the efforts of the copyright holder, the Dutch Reformed Translation Society, for bringing this masterful work to the english language, and respect their copyright as unto the law, but also wish to honor the spirit of their wishes as well ... so, I think while I will cite text from Strong, and Hodge, I'll simply cite the locations when referencing Bavinck.

Regards!