A common argument given for keeping ministry resources under restrictive copyright is to supposedly protect them from abuse. The fear goes that someone may try to profit off of your hard work or claim it is their own, or a sect might make a derivative that includes their own heresy, or someone might even make a mockery of it. All of these things would be legal if a resource were to be dedicated to the public domain. So, is this a good reason to retain copyright on Christian resources?
Copyright primarily prevents well–intentioned use of resources
When fears are listed off regarding misuses of resources, what is often not acknowledged are all the good uses that will also be prevented by copyright. Think of all the possible positive uses of a resource, and you can guarantee that all but the most trivial would be forbidden. Such as translating a resource for an unreached people group, including it in Bible study software, adapting it for a younger audience, bundling it together with other useful resources, etc.
As an analogy, what would it look like if we were to take a similar approach to church services? It would mean forbidding anyone from entering church unless they applied for permission, to guard against the rare possibility that someone might come in and do something bad. It would be an extreme overreaction to a merely hypothetical threat.
It is also rarely acknowledged that Christian works can already be misused under existing fair use laws. Parodies of works are legal, meaning any Christian resource can be turned into a satanic mockery, regardless of copyright. Even then, we are assuming that all copiers of the resource are law-abiding. Those with evil intentions will be predisposed to simply ignoring copyright law altogether, especially those living in countries that rarely enforce it.
The open source software movement has already demonstrated that fears of abuse are irrational, as the benefits of freely sharing resources far outweigh any risks involved in the relinquishing of copyright restrictions.[1] This has also been clearly demonstrated by the free publication of the public domain KJV Bible translation in most countries, which has not resulted in any widespread corruption of the text.
But abuses do occasionally happen, so how should we respond if they do?
Rather be wronged
Thankfully, we have some very clear instruction from Paul in this regard:
If any of you has a grievance against another, how dare he go to law before the unrighteous instead of before the saints! Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
So if you need to settle everyday matters, do you appoint as judges those of no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Is there really no one among you wise enough to arbitrate between his brothers? Instead, one brother goes to law against another, and this in front of unbelievers!
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means that you are thoroughly defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, even against your own brothers! (1 Cor 6:1–8 BSB)
Copyright is secular law that has little support from Scripture,[2] and it can only be enforced by secular authorities. Paul does not explicitly state what the believers in Corinth were suing each other over, but perceived abuse of mere copies of resources would surely fit well into the category of issues Paul is addressing.
Pay careful attention to Paul’s advice, for when such matters cannot be resolved: “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” Paul says it is better for the gospel when we don’t bring such matters before secular authorities. In fact, to do so would be to “cheat and do wrong.” Threatening another believer with a lawsuit may be even worse than whatever wrong you are accusing them of. While this passage specifically addresses grievances between believers, Jesus’ own teaching on how to respond to minor forms of injustice should also be kept in mind (Matt 5:38-41, Luke 6:29-30).
This isn’t to say that abuse of resources shouldn’t be confronted, though.
Rebuke is appropriate
While it is better to be wronged than air grievances before secular authorities, Paul does not say such grievances don’t matter at all. He refers to such grievances as “trivial” (ἐλαχίστων) when compared to “judging the world” and angels. But his concern is not that these grievances are merely being aired, but that they are being aired before unbelievers. And he implies that it is appropriate to address them before fellow believers (1 Cor 6:5).
Just because a resource has been freely given, that doesn’t mean the author cannot condemn abuses of it. Some argue that condemning an abuse of a resource would mean it hasn’t really been “freely given” because there is a condition that it cannot be misused. However, that would be to confuse the reason for the condemnation. We should not condemn misuse because we have some kind of ownership of a resource, but simply because misuse is wrong.
If you gave someone a phone for free, but they used it to make scam calls, you would rightly condemn them. But this should not necessarily be understood as a condition on the giving. If instead it was your friend who gave them a free phone, you would still rightly condemn them for making scam calls. The primary issue is their misbehavior.
Jesus himself said “freely give” (Matt 10:8) and freely gave his own teaching (and life!), yet we know for certain that he is quick to rebuke and condemn those who misuse his words or exploit them for their own gain (e.g. Matt 23:13–15, 21:12–13, 7:21–23, John 2:13–17, Mark 7:6–9, Luke 20:45–47).
If you are the creator of a resource that is misused, you will naturally be more invested in correcting such behavior. While this might stem from perceived ownership of the resource, it need not be. It can simply be because you are more informed than anyone else as to why the resource is being misused. For example, if someone were to copy one of the apps I develop and paywall it without changing it, I’d probably rebuke them. This is because they would not be adding any value, and users might not realize the original version is free. If they refused to remove the paywall, and I knew what church they attended, I might even reach out to their pastor about it. But I’d have no desire–or ability–to threaten them with a secular lawsuit. If they don’t listen to correction from others, then God will be their judge (Matt 18:17).
Conclusion
While it is understandable to have concerns about the potential misuse of Christian resources, the biblical approach calls us to prioritize the free and generous sharing of these resources over any legal protections copyright might afford. It is easy to claim that one is protecting the message of the gospel by maintaining exclusive control over Christian resources, but this can just as easily be born out of our own pride and concern for our own reputation. The example set by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 reminds us that, in such cases, it is better to endure wrong than to threaten legal recourse. We can instead protect the truth by continuing to proclaim it, correcting those who manipulate it, just as the apostles (Gal 1:9, 2 Peter 3:16, 3 John 1:9-10) and countless other believers have done for thousands of years before the advent of copyright.
The open source movement has been so successful that even big companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google, are significant contributors to open source software. Microsoft was especially critical of open source philosophy in its early days, and yet now it is the owner of the largest platform for open source code in the world (GitHub). ↩︎
Violation of copyright is often referred to as theft, but it lacks the core component that makes theft theft: the owner is not deprived of the resource. For example, if someone steals a bike then the owner of the bike no longer has a bike. But if someone copies a book, the owner of the book still has their own book. They have not been deprived of anything. See also “Appendix C. Copyright and Natural Law” in The Dorean Principle. ↩︎