Happy clappy types won't have apocrypha in their bible, that's only for Roman Catholic bibles. And the moral rights of the translator may have been asserted, if it's a translation still in copyright.
Moral rights are backdated to the date of writing, like copyright (copyright exists from when you write the thing, not when it's published), so publishers now state that moral rights have been asserted, just as they point out that copyright belongs to the author, to prevent any smartarse from pretending that they thought it was copyright free and they could do what they liked with it.
Apocrypha vs. happy-clappy - no, indeed, that was all a bit confused because we were drunk; a happy-clappy probably doesn't even have an Old Testament. I was talking about two different things.
It's not just Catholics, though; a historical-interest reprint of the King James has the Apocrypha, which is what we've got (so the translation is also not still in copyright...)
I suspect what they are actually talking about is the very erudite introduction.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Moral rights are backdated to the date of writing, like copyright (copyright exists from when you write the thing, not when it's published), so publishers now state that moral rights have been asserted, just as they point out that copyright belongs to the author, to prevent any smartarse from pretending that they thought it was copyright free and they could do what they liked with it.
H
(no subject)
It's not just Catholics, though; a historical-interest reprint of the King James has the Apocrypha, which is what we've got (so the translation is also not still in copyright...)
I suspect what they are actually talking about is the very erudite introduction.