By Susan Fontaine Godwin
Over the past few years, controversy has raged regarding interpretation of the U.S. Copyright Law’s “religious service exemption” contained in Section 110 (3). This has been a tricky question and fine point pertaining to the language in the religious service exemption, and it appears that a few rather poorly placed commas and conjunctions have resulted in wide-spread confusion and debate by churches, copyright owners, administrators and attorneys. (Suggested reading: “Eats, Shoots & Leaves,” by Lynne Truss). Some of my favorite copyright advocates and I found ourselves on opposite sides of the fence, until I saw the light and converted this summer.
A colleague and friend, Wendy Weaver, Esq., researched the point earlier this year and received the following statement from the U.S. Copyright Office counsel who forwarded to her the U.S. House report on this section of the U.S. Copyright Law. The House report makes it very clear that the exemption pertains to musical works (not just those of a religious nature) and dramatico-musical works of a religious nature. By the way, also in agreement are our attorney and Cheryl Besenjak, Willow Creek Copyright Director and veteran Copyright Administrator.
We quote this text from the House Report because counsel for the Copyright Office explained that the House Report is considered more authoritative since it was written a year later than the Senate’s and closer to the date of enactment. They are almost identical anyway.
Religious Services
“The exemption in clause (3) of section 110 covers performances of nondramatic literary or musical work, and also performances of “dramatico-musical works of a religious nature.”
For comparison sake, here’s the exact language you will find the U.S. Copyright Law…
Section 110 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:
(3) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical
work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services
at a place of worship or other religious assembly;
The accuracy and efficacy of legal agreements and statutes often hinge upon the precision and execution of proper grammar and punctuation. Ms. Weaver explains it this way: “It would have been nice if they had drafted the statute as definitively as the report. Here they used one “or” and then an “and.” This is the correct way to draft it legally. In the statute they just used “or” to separate the three, leaving the reader confused as to what “of a religious nature” was actually defining. Here they also used the quotations to emphasize that “of religious nature” was only attached to dramatico-musical works.”
“In addition, a representative from ASCAP told me that the exemption of “dramatico-musical works of a religious nature” encompassed musical theater,” continues Ms. Weaver. “So, that a musical theater piece that was of a religious nature, say Jesus Christ Superstar, would be exempt from licensing. Both legislative reports make it very clear that this only exempts cantatas, oratorios, choral pieces, and the like. They outright state that it is not intended to exempt musical plays.”
In today’s culture of tweets, texts and blogs, our daily communications all but ignore the practice of punctuation, grammar and full sentences. Perhaps we would all profit by considering how much confusion and frustration can be unleashed by the lack of thoughtful and well constructed written communication.