As far as I know, there were no copyright laws when the various books of the Bible were written, but each publisher who pays for a new translation or adds any notes, maps, etc. to the version he publishes can copyright the new content of his version, so most Bibles you pick up will have legitimate copyrights. I am not sure what the copyright laws were in Britain in 1611 when the first version of the King James was published, or if a 400 year old copyright could be enforced, but the text of the KJV can be freely copied most places without legal problems. In the USA, a standard copyright was 75 years (when I was taught in school) but could be renewed (extended) by the original producer of the material or a person or company that procured that right from the producer. By the way, a copyright is a legal restriction on duplicating someone else's work to protect the right of the original producer of a work to get fair pay for his work. Producing a new translation of a document like the Bible takes thousands of man-hours which costs a lot of money, so the publishers have a legitimate right to restrict the free copying and distribution of that work. While some would work on such a project without pay, in our economy it is not very practical to expect enough scholars, editors, etc. to participate, probably investing hundreds or thousands of personal hours, without some compensation.

As I understand it, the 1611 King James was copyrighted by King James. It had his royal seal in the introduction with an order that no one make changes to the text under penalty of the powers of the King of England. It was not an American style, copy this and be sued copyright, but it was a protective copyright to keep the text the same forever, and it has worked. There have been revisions, for standardizing spelling, adding chapter and verse markings, standardizing punctuation, and changing font from gothic to roman. The words are still the same, though, every one. Generalhavoc says the KJV is copyrighted in England. Since King James never rescinded his copyright, I suspect that is true. I also know that the methods of publishing the Bible used by Cambridge are copyrighted, their clear type, binding method, etc. but the words in the Bible are for everyone, which is why King James commissioned the translation to begin with. The modern versions have a "copy this and I'll sue" copyright. Zondervan owns the NIV, Thomas Nelson owns the NKJV, Watchtower own the good noose. Try reprinting these books for distribution, and see where you end up. Maybe you can get Judge Brown, or Judge Judy, but you will lose anyway. They would just keep your case entertaining and put you on that there tee-vee..

There is no copyright on the Bible itself, it is free for public use in every way as far as I know There are however copyrights on the different versions by their respective writers, etc in that you cant buy a copy of it, then resell it without the proper license The King James version is yours to use and sell as you see fit though I think, just that I doubt anyone will buy it from you, since there are so many other copies being sold from reliable companies, etc

The original works must be God's own therefore God owns the copyright. In most countries copyrights do not have to be applied for as they are the automatic right of the originator of the work. If I were to produce a revision the words and therefore the copyright are still owned by God, or it is not the bible, just some derived works. When I do a revision I will be doing under prayer from God or it is not Gods work. Therefore God has updated God's own copyright for my revision or God didn't put God's words in the book and it becomes a derived works Since all Law in Christian societies such as UK and USA includes God in the equation this must be true or they are bound by their own hypocracy.

GOD!!!...;)

Nobody, anyone can translate from the earliest manuscripts, if they can see a copy. Copyright of that translation becomes theirs and whoever wishes to use the translation comes under the restrictions put in by the copyright!

What about illustrations? Would an illustration from a Pope Sixtus V's Vulgate translation from Venice 1625 still have copyright? Or can I use one for a Christmas card? :)

No one. But of course, if you quote something from the Bible, you have to acknowledge that it's from the Bible.

The U. S. Copyright office will not allow anyone to create a new Bible version unless there are enough substantial changes to the text, the actual words of the manuscript to make it a brand new work. They are literally called "versions." When a new version is published it is because they have changed the contents enough to make it a work that has never been published before and can therefore claim the original copyright. In short that means the new versions have to be legally very different from the King James Bible which is what is used to make the comparison. It is recognized as the original Bible in the United States. The laws that govern the United States are based on the Old Testament of the King James Bible. The New King James is called this because the manuscript is a new manuscript not an updated King James Bible. Bible Publishers have to answer to stockholders. Their product has to sell and make money or they lose stockholders and cannot remain profitable. New version does not mean its better nor more accurate. It means it is a new work never before published. I don't know how many words have to be changed to warrant calling it a new work, but they have to be substantial or it can be viewed as either infringement or plagarism. This information can be verified at the U.S. Copyright Office Official site. But here is an excerpt: US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that: A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. Christians assume God gives us exclusive right to make derivative changes. They have not read God's copyright warnings in Revelation 22:17-19.

The only translation that is not copywrited is the King James Version Bible. It can be copied, printed, put online...you can do just about anything with it and not have to pay any royalties or copywrite fees! :)