Plagiarism And Reprints
There is a vast difference between plagiarism and reprinting of another's writings. No man with character, integrity and self respect will print under his own signature another's writings or speeches. It is stealing for his own purposes that which belongs to another. The specific name for this kind of literary theft is plagiarism. Another misappropriation of writings is to reprint and sell that which another has produced and published for profit or has copyrighted for protection against other publishing without permission from the author or publisher. On the other hand, there are public speeches and writings which have been publicly spread to which no claim is made for personal profit, but have been produced for all the good which can be done. This is especially true of most sermons and much of the religious writings. If one expects to receive profit from the publication of sermons or writings it should be so indicated by copyright or otherwise so that others may know not to help disseminate the contents by reprinting. If, on the other hand, one wants it spread as far and as free as is possible for the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people, he will not complain if other publishers circulate his works, he will rejoice that others have seen the value of his material.
Copyrighted Bibles
When the American Standard Version of the bible was published it was copyrighted. The publishers stated that this was to insure purity of text. Permission was either granted or sold by them to authors and publishers of commentaries and literature for them to use this text. Actually, however, the greatest effect of the copyright was to prevent other Bible publishers from the sale of the revised text. The ultimate result was to destroy the interest in and demand for this version, so that the publishers who copyrighted found themselves losers. The King James version has been free to all publishers and it continues to be the best seller with many publishing houses making a profit on its publication. This same publishing house has published a later translation and has placed it under copyright. This is sufficient evidence that the publishers and the translators who turned it over to them are not interested in. the greatest amount of good it will do by getting the most to read it, but are interested in the personal profit to the publishers and the producers. Actually this latest product is an avenue of modernism and it is hoped that they will retain strict control of the copyright, thereby keeping it out of the hands of the public.
Much has been spoken and written about this latest copyrighted version, but not enough to keep some people from buying and using it in their studies. Foy E. Wallace, Jr. has been preaching a sermon on this "New Bible" in many of his meetings. It should be given "free" circulation to reach and warn as many as possible against this modernism. Such a sermon should not be confined to the four walls of the buildings where he preaches the sermon.
Copyrighted Papers
A few years ago Clinton Davidson had the big idea of getting control of the religious papers published by brethren and copyrighting them to keep critical brethren from quoting from them and "misrepresenting" them. He almost did it. Had it not been for a few, in such papers as the Bible Banner, blasting away at the movement it might have been accepted.
Only puerile thinking characterizes the man who supposes that such a protection of his writings will prevent criticism and misrepresentation. That will be done with or without legal copyright protection if the man says anything deserving of notice.
No honorable writer or publisher will reprint that which is thus copyrighted without proper arrangements. But copyright privileges do not prevent criticism of what a man has said. Neither will that honorable publisher reprint and sell that from which the author and his publisher without such copyright is obtaining income unless by arrangement with the author and publisher. This would be violation of moral rights if not violation of legal rights. Nor will that honorable writer or publisher misrepresent another, whether by quotation, partial quotation, or interpretation. If a man wants to misrepresent another it is possible whether copyright prevails or not.
To Every Creature
Imagine, if you can, the Lord telling his disciples that he wanted them to have the sermon on the mount, but that he did not want copies of it published and spread all over the world because someone might misrepresent him in the copying and that mistakes and additions might be made in the copies. Imagine Paul preaching on Mars Hill but telling Luke that he did not want his sermon published because his enemies might misquote and misrepresent him. Of course we know that he was misrepresented. Imagine his writing the letter to the church at Corinth and declaring that no one else had legal or moral right to publish it, because in doing so they might misquote or misrepresent him. Remember that Peter tells us that Paul was misrepresented.
The gospel was to be preached to every creature. If I am writing and speaking lessons of truth, who am I to decide that my writings or speeches ought to have limited circulation and publication? If what I say is the truth the world needs to hear it. If it is the truth let as many spread it as will, that as much good as possible come of A. Some men are bigger than the Lord and his apostles in their own estimation.
No human is infallible. Any writer or speaker will make mistakes. When such has been done he has the right and obligation to repudiate it. When some former teaching has been repudiated, of course the honorable writer or publisher who knows of the change will not republish his old views representing them as being his present conviction. They might be published because considered to be an apt statement of principle, but never leaving the impression that they are the present conviction of the author.
The mere reprinting of another's material is not the great crime of brethren in religious publications. The great crime is copying that of another and calling it one's own material, not giving credit to whom credit is due for authorship. That is plagiarism, it is theft. It is true that very few ideas which any one of us presents are his own, he got them somewhere else; but, surely, in our teaching, oral and written, we should study on the subject so that we have our own convictions; and if we cannot tell it in our own words, then give credit to whomever we quote.