Hi Matt81. I'll leave the Uccanada discussion to those of you in the denomination. I just want to encourage you to post here if you have been shut down by the other forum. There is room in the cafe here for you.

rich blessings.

Hi Matt81,

As a whole and not just the group that censored you.  Well, why not?

Fair use protocols are easily abused and as such are probably a legal grey area.

What constitutes fair use?  If I have 100 hymnbooks when am I abusing fair use by projecting words and music overhead?  When those in attendance is 100 persons or less?  When those in attendance is 200 persons or less (because sharing a hymnbook with one other person isn't that uncomfortable).  I have no idea.

Can I buy a set for the senior choir and then project words and music for whatever sized group gathers for worship?  That seems a deliberate run around fair use.

So buying the license is probably a firmer legal option.  Bearing in mind that some licensing limits the number of folk the license applies to.

My congregation buys the license simply because fair use appears to depend more on who is hearing the trial than it does who was listening to worship.

Respectfully, I don't know that this is a matter of right vs wrong so much as it is a matter between what is clear and what isn't.  In Canada we do not observe fair use but rather fair dealing.  Fair use is far more generous than is fair dealing.

Fair use, as I understand it, allows congregations to reproduce copyrighted material for worship provided the congregation has paid for worship materials to reasonably facilitate worship.

So, you have 100 hymnbooks you can project words and music for 100 people, going above that is going to test the limits of fair use.  Once or twice above is probably acceptable, constantly going above is an abuse.

Fair dealing, according to Canadian Copyright law limits the restrictions to reproduction granting exemptions to copyright for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting.  Worship does not appear to meet the exemption criteria so even if you have 100 hymnbooks Fair Dealing would not permit the projection of copyrighted material without a license to do so.

There are six factors to dealing that determine whether it is fair or not.

1) Purpose--research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting.

2) Character--single or multiple copies, are copies destroyed after use?

3) Amount--how much of the work is being reproduced?

4) Alternatives--Is a non-copyrighted equivalent available

5) Effect--how does this efect the original work

Just to muddy the waters, if I purchase something from an American publisher which applies American or Canadian copyright law?  If I purchase something from a Canadian publisher which applies American or Canadian copyright law?

Well, until this thread gets yanked it looks like some portions of the United Church have no problem listening to your criticism or allowing you to voice your opinion.

Grace and peace to you.

John

It would be interesting to know how many pastoral charges have the licence?

Hi Matt81.

I must apologize for the delay in responding to your post on the Church Tech Group.  Your message was not censured. I had forwarded it for information to colleagues here at GCO who are not members of the group with the hope of getting a reply. 

Unfortunately due to the considerable shuffling and overall busyness of the past month here at the General Council Office this was lost, and I don't expect a formal reply at this time.

In addition, your message unfortunately expired in the Google Group (something I wasn't aware could happen) and I am unable to publish it.  Please feel free to re-post to that group for further discussion if you wish, and I will ensure it is published live.  

Regards,

Bill Gillard, Web Manager
The United Church of Canada General Council office

P.S. For anyone else interested in this topic (or other tech-related topics), please feel free to also join our open Church Technology Google Group.  We discuss everything from websites to sound systems, projection, and computer systems. There are members of varying technical ability and background, and all are welcome.

My experiences with book publishers have pretty much put me off bothering to work on book-length projects.  It's not about a lot of money changing hands or getting rich: it's much more elemental than that. Rip-off uses DO deter writers and composers from publication. There are only a few limited genres that actualy feed their creative sources. Artists are similarly at the mercy of gallery owners and speculative investors in art. Playwrights rely on thetaremanagers and directors, and compete with every playwright whose ever lived. There are good Canadian playscripts lying in drawers while theatre companies — at the mercy of box office expectations — belt out re-runs of Noel Coward, GBS and Oscar Hammerstein and (the "modern" ones) Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals. For a writer, artist or musician, that's fine when you have something to say or the need to create and particular piece of work… or hold a tenured academic position… and you can survive while you do it. 

We now have systems of arts grants, etc, which tend to distort the whole creative subculture. Often they do not seem to match the artistic/creative need… but decisions on which funding rely are often necessarily subjective and easilly become political. These have almost all been pared back over the years, so there's not a lot of artistic/creative coherence and we see many pockets of often indifferent work that reaches small, localised communities in ways that are probably unsustainable.

I think you need to bear in mind how you would feel about others using your personal work without recognition or recompense or for ends you disagree with.

It;s always been a bit vexatious. In the past, atists/creatives depended on aristocratic patronage. or the Catholic Church… now it seems to be commerce and pop "cuture"… or grants (political whim). — all relatively flighty sources of sustenance.

And the churches play a small role in buying and using hymnbooks… and complain about the cost… 

Please bear in mind that the creatprs of a new hymn are articulating the spiritual needs of the day… in the same way as Charles Wesley was speaking to the needs of his day. When we linger in the past, and resist resourcing the present. we will slip further and further from reality.

Meanwhile, just pay the pittance for your friggin' music… and celebrate it!… especially the "NEW material".

lol.  I knew as soon as you posted: there's no way you'd have been 'censored' by the United Church (unless you were 'staff' at GCO, of course).

There *is* a lot of online material that can't possibly be monitored by the available eyes at GCO; I'm not surprised this 'fell through the cracks'.  I am slightly surprised that there's a 'moderation' stage to any posting in a Google Group, especially for Techies.

It's nice to not violate copyright, but if a church is merely projecting lyrics to facilitate participation of all in singing the hymns that are in the books in the pews, I'd argue there is no copyright violation.

Not the advice we received recently, either. We'd assumed that we were okay as long as we stuck with VU (we only have enough More Voices for the choir, so knew we had an issue there). We weren't. AND it turns out that you need to contract with two of the three copyright co-ordinating firms to cover even MOST of what's in VU. 

*sigh* Yet another expense increase with no off-setting revenue. It's hard to keep up.

If anyone in the congregation has a disability that makes it difficult to hold books, like arthritis, or is elderly and frail than the church can also use section 32 of the copyright act to project words of a song onto a screen

https://sites.google.com/site/accessiblechurch/united-church#TOC-Copyrig...

Section 32 of the Copyright Act (Reproduction in alternate format)

It is not an infringement of copyright to make a copy in a format for persons with a perceptual disability.

(a) severe or total impairment of sight or hearing or the inability to focus or move one’s eyes,
(b) the inability to hold or manipulate a book, or
(c) an impairment relating to comprehension

C  includes Learning disabilities like Attention Deficit Disorder, and neurological disorders affecting concentration

Yup, but the main idea is that a person, or an institution not be forced to pay extra fees if they are doing something with copyright material, in order to make it accessible to people with various disabilities, or in other terms the differently abled, the ill, and the elderly. Legally these groups have disabilities, yet few in society think of them being disabled.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-33.html#s-32.

Of course the ability to project words  would mean that you would have to have some members in the audience who may have ADD, or who may have a disability like arthritis and that causes trouble holding and turning the pages of their books.  

Howevr and this is a big however

Howver organisations are also able to reproduce copyrighted material in an accessible  format even if they do not have members with such disabilities, but who wish to be prepared in case one shows up.  

The vast majority of thise with arithris, ( the largest single  cause of disablity in Canadians)  are over 50,  I can not remember the last time someone over 50 showed up at my UCC, but just in case they do I may want to be prepared. (sorry if I am being sarcastic)

One can not use this exception to ignore the rest of the law, so it would mean each member (who does not have a disability)  of the audience  being offered a hymn book . ( And not for instance the congregation having a copy in the closet)  

Of course the "non disabled" member, might be looking at the projection and not her Hymn book.  But that person may have a disability like ADD, and under the law it is questionable if you can ask someone what kind of diabilty they have.  People who have ADD, Autism, head injuries, degerative disorder like Alzheimers, stroke survivors, may be unwilling to declare their disabilities, yet we are still allowed to accomadate in the way a screen projection does.

Now for a moral, but not a legal point.

When one starts to project words, on to a screen, it creates a barrier for some people with some disabilities.

For example I have a type of AUtism (PDD-NOS) and for some of us with autism the light from the screen projectionm overwelms our senses. So it would be a good idea to put the projection in a place, which would still allow a place, or places where those who would be bothered or impaired by it to sit.

Alex makes a good point. Have the churches not learned about Duty to Accommodate legislation with regard to people with disabilities? I would assume so. I am surprised that people discussing this issue have not heard of it. Businesses and public services and facilities open to the public have to be accessible, unless the people providing them would incur undue hardship (I.e. something like installing an elevator would be impossible). But according to this copyright provision Alex posted, they would not be expected to incur extra expense to make sure the materials were accessible for everyone- of which, several congregants and visitors would most likely have all manner of disabilities. So, the churches would have a duty to provide alternate formats anyway, would they not?

Very interesting.....

Love the debate and input. Some old, some new, all worthy of thought - thanks.

And, yes, as one who has published, in church publications and abroad, the use of one's work, and for what purpose is interesting.  I published a book last year using the KOBO online publishing system.  Authors there are given the choice as to whether to restrict the possiblity of locking the material or allowing sharing by the purchasers.  I unlocked my book after several weeks of dismal sales, even priced very low. With the lock off, the theory is that sales would have stopped, they went up.  Especially in Europe. I don't understand that.

So, we'll just carry on and wait for the thought police. And here is something else to ponder.  Ever use a piece of music behind a video?  For projection?  Seen those vidoes on YouTube and wondered if they were legal.  I found this opinion and feel it's worth sharing, its from the supreme court decision of July '12.

Similar to SOCAN, Re:Sound is a collective society that collects equitable remuneration under s. 19(1) for the performance or communication to the public of published sound recordings. In 2008, Re:Sound applied to the Copyright Board for royalties on the use of sound recordings in movies and TV programs. Despite the language of the definition of "sound recording", Re:Sound argued that it does not "exclude a pre-existing sound recording that is incorporated into a soundtrack", but is only meant to protect a combined audiovisual production. The Board and the Federal Court of Appeal disagreed with Re:Sound and refused to order these royalties.

Source: http://www.cwilson.com/resource/newsletters/article/1026-canadas-supreme-court-delivers-5-key-copyright-decisions.html

Get it?  Opinion on this opinion of the court decision is that my videos with music, are, and always have been, quite legal.

Front page of the website is neater.

Thanks again for weighing in.  But I'm giving up on the technology group.

Here is a link about Accessibilty Grants, which may apply to other concerns besides this one. Also, there may be local or provincial grants. This is a seperate issue but related- it's my belief that the more understood disabilities are and the more accessible society is the better. Accessibilty helps overcome poverty. Both financial and emotional/ social.

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability/eaf/

On Alex's point- this leads into things that could be discussed here if it's not already. Anyone going? I'm quite interested but unable to attend.

http://www.united-church.ca/getinvolved/events/gathering-together

I am able to attend, but I do not want to spend what little I have traveling to from what I can tell is just a few small group discussions that will have little effect on those not attending. 

If it was of any importance I would have imagine  that they would make it accessible online. Especially considering the costs involved in traveling for people living with disabilities.  Also if it was of any importance they would have a list of accommodations available for various disabilities. Is it wheel chair accessible, is  there going to be ASL and QSL  interpreters,and  accommodations for others, 

Even if I lived in Toronto I would not want to go to a discussion group on accessibility that would exclude those who use wheel chairs, the deaf and hard of hearing and other groups who would go if their accomadation needs were provided for.  Most feel uncomfortable, or are made uncomfortable when they are forced to explain why the need certain kinds of assistance. There is no indication of which people can be accomadated, nor a is person designated who would understand, or fjor see such what is needed when requests are needed.

I have also been to one too many "consultations" elsewhere for people living with AIDS, as well as those for people for people living with Autism, where in effect we were not taken seriously, by the higher ups (*those with power)or staff. And those who funded the consultations had no intention of changing their positions in light of what they learned.  At best, The consultations were held, just for the effect of them being able to say that a consultation took place. At worse the consultation were used to disenfranchise people from being involved or heard elsewhere in the organisation.  Thus for me (and likely others) to spend the time, money and energy required I would need to know this is  not just another one of those "consultations."  

This may or may not be the case this time. However there are no indications that it is different .There does not seem to be an inclusion of people living with disabilities on the planning committee. There was no wide spread promotion during the preceding year. There is little information about the content. Nor is there any online component. that would enable the inclusion of those unable to travel, or those living in institutions. While the staff people involved may be sincere, and working hard, it does not appear there were given the time or resources needed.  So I assume they will not be able to implement anything that is learned.

It seems to be just an addon to another conference being held that week in Toronto which is geared to those in academia, and those in ministry with the disabled. This preceding conference has a very narrow idea of what "disable" is and seems to be based around a charity" model, rather than a social, or liberation model. 

No Churches are only obliged by law to accommodate people with disabilities under certain conditions , and the law excludes worship services. Even where the law requires churches to provide accomdation (like in Hall rentals) most churches just ignore the law.

 Many churches also ignore many human rights lights, and plead that they believe that religious exemtions cover the provision of services that are non religious.

Yet they are always stickler for copyright law, and often it is misunderstood by them and almost everyone else.  it is badly written and out of date, and has been changed piece by piece because courts have declared sections to be illegal.   The government has tried to change and  update it with a new law, but when the opposition protested to certain aspects , the minister accused them of siding with child abusers. Subsequently the new law was such a mess, that it was withdrawn. We will likely have to wait several more years before it is updated. 

Matt81?

Are you going to respond to your original charge that you were censored, and the response by BGillard?

*I like others have not seen any monitoring of posts, so my suspicion was a timeout, thanks BGillard for sharing your input to what had occurred..**

Happily, I'm not in charge of anything remotely worship service related. Follow the rules, kids.

Respectfully, Martha, people seem to be saying that the rules lack some clarity. 

Pinga:

I would like to have the ability to believe deeply that censureship does not happen on forums in the UCC sphere. However, I cannot feel that way at this time.  It is indeed totally possible that with the hubub at the National church office things slip through the cracks. And, there are other forums where all posts are vetted before being allowed to be put up.  That in intself is a form of censureship.  yet, is acceptable to some.  There are many voices in the United Church, though some of those voices are not as "welcome" as others. 

In effect, I cannot decide if the censorship is deliberate or accidental.  I'd like to believe the latter.  At this point, my personal feeling is that I'm so off base in regards to the thinking of the church offices that it might be better just to shut up.  So, I shall, for now.

peace y'all.

Sophistry? Is there a working definition? Will you make that definition present to our understanding, in your own plain words?
.
A somewhat similar situation is spoken of in an ancient and venerated story. An itinerant radical is questioned on jurisdiction. Cunning as serpent and harmless as dove, the radical one asked for a coin. "Whose "mark of ownership" is this?"
.
Two realms are delineated. Taking my bearing by reference to Moses, I assert that have opportunity to declare ourselves "in" the world structures but not "of" the world structures.
.
When the lyric, "freely, freely, you have received; freely, freely give. Go in my name and, because you believe, others will know that I live", appears with a "mark of ownership", I suspect it is charged with transparent irony.
.
As one who wonders about where we are, how we got here, where we might prefer to be, and how we get there?
.

As Alex said, perhaps it doesn't apply to worship services. I don't know. , actually. In circumstances like job interviews and workplace, which I realize is different but still about equal access,(theoretically but not always practiced) employers have to provide reasonable accommodations like materials for the visually impaired, when requested in order for people to equally be able to participate in the job interview or equally be able to perform job duties. Same in post secondary settings. I know churches are different but so many facets of society are stepping up to the plate and removing barriers, why wouldn't the churches do the same- whether legislated- or just because there are provisions for it and it's a good idea. It doesn't make sense that a person would be adequately accommodated to get to church on the bus, to cross the street, but not once they get there. I think most churches actually do try their best. Here I have found they do, but if there are areas to improve- why not?

Matt81, I personally believe in this case that you are being paranoid.

I  have had positive experiences with the tech person who posted on this thread.from technology forum I think and have found no issues.
I  also get  how things can slip.
I have seen seen how much is allowed all over for junk posts.

You presumed the negative, rather than asking first if it was possible that there was censorship.
Note: I would suggest that others could have challenged your base assumption; hwoever, I understand the desire to debate the topic

You posted this presumption  a public forum with the accusation of censorship, and then continued down that stream with further implications/presumptions of why .

When replies were made and with other's experiences, again you were unable to accept it.

My sense is that something has coloured your perception so that it extends in areas that it doesn't belong, and I suggest that you reflect on that paranoia and how it impacts eperience

I think you will find that few churches would end up getting these grants...

GordW, we were able to get grant to put in an elevator.  we are heavily used by the public, but not as heavy as others.

The United Church I attended last Sunday (and will likely attend again this weekend) projected the hymns. They also project all unison and responsive readings and prayers, which shortens their bulletin considerably compared to the others that I have attended.

I have no idea what they've done about copyright but I loved it. Being able to keep my head up and not having to hold the hymn book (VU and the UU hymnbook Singing the Living Tradition are just heavy enough to bother the mild RSI in my wrists) made singing the music much easier. Was also the first time that I've actually sung something from More Voices (and I liked it).

My UU fellowship is looking at doing it (I just refurbed an old laptop they had in storage to use with the projector). I called attention to the copyright problem but dealing with it will rest in the hands of others.

Mendalla

We pay a fee for a license on an annual basis and then project all the song lyrics via PowerPoint. I think many churches do the same. I'm surprised to learn that the United Church is generally behind in this, especially since you only use two song books for congregational singing - both of which are your own.

1) many congregations use many other resources than Voices United and More Voices.

2) the copyright to the pieces in a book does not rest with teh publisher of the book.  it rests with teh writer.  Which for hymns often means one person for words and another for the music (and possibly a third for the arangement).  So you need separate permissions for each thing you want to duplicate.

Of the popular licensing packages out there my last knowledge was that there is none that covers all the writers in VU or MV.

And I suspect we'll be in the same boat with Singing the Living Tradition and Singing the Journey, our equivalents to Voices United and More Voices respectively. Unless you're going to stick exclusively to public domain settings of public domain hymns (ie. the "old classics") or write your own, copyright is going to rear its ugly head. I know of no congregation or even tradition that is capable of doing either in this modern era.

Mendalla