Dispute Over "John 1" Choral Music Continues
Since our initial post on July 7, 2025, there has been significant movement in this case involving a copyright dispute between the Indiana Bible College (“IBC” or “Plaintiff”) and the Fred Bock Music Company, Inc. (“FBMC”), Dr. Rosephanye Powell (“Dr. Powell”) and Doe Defendants, (collectively, the “Defendants”), regarding two choral works setting the text of John 1:1–3. The Defendants have alleged that the Plaintiff’s work, “John 1,” was derived from Dr. Powell’s composition, “The Word Was God,” and, after these public allegations, IBC filed its initial Complaint, accusing the Defendants of defamation and tortious interference with business relationships. Now FBMC has responded.
On August 11, 2025, FBMC filed its Answer to the initial Complaint issued by IBC. Shortly afterward, on August 29, IBC filed its initial Answer to FBMC’s Counterclaims. Before FBMC could respond, IBC then amended its original Complaint twice—it filed its first amended Complaint on August 30, 2025, and then provided the most recent version on September 11, 2025. On September 25, 2025, FBMC filed its new Answer to respond to the amendments, and the IBC filed another Answer to FBMC’s counterclaims on October 16, 2025. However, this Answer was not the IBC’s final one, and IBC filed an amended Answer on October 23, 2025. Although it is possible that more changes will be made, this blog post will focus on some more recent versions of the main documents involved in this case: the Plaintiff’s twice-amended Complaint, FBMC’s Answer to this amended Complaint, and IBC’s once–amended Answer to FBMC’s counterclaims.
The Plaintiff’s new Complaint adjusts the allegations against the Defendants and provides more details about these allegations. Most significantly, the amended Complaint removes the count for tortious interference (original Complaint at 4–5), proceeding only with the allegations of defamation and the need for declaratory judgement. The amendments also expand on the IBC’s justification for venue, highlighting its belief that “John 1” was composed, first performed, and defamed in the press in Indianapolis, Indiana. The amended Complaint also provides more details about the alleged defamatory statements, quoting directly from the IndyStar and social media posts from Dr. Powell and FBMC (Second Amended Complaint at 3–4, 7–8). The amended document also details the consequences from the alleged defamation, describing how the Defendants’ alleged defamation has prohibited the IBC from performing, “diminished enrollment inquiries” (id. at 9), damaged the IBC’s reputation (id. at 9) and caused the Plaintiff “to receive calls and emails daily regarding ‘John 1.’” (id. at 6). These new details and adjustments to the Complaint provide more information about the defamation and damage the IBC alleges.
In its Answer to the Plaintiff’s most recent Complaint, the FBMC denies the Plaintiff’s claims, defends its copyright in “The Word Was God,” and criticizes elements of the IBC’s Complaint. While “[admitting] that an actual and justiciable controversy exists concerning whether ‘John 1’ infringes its copyright in ‘The Word Was God’,” FBMC denies the defamation allegations, maintaining that it has not “made any false or malicious statements” (Answer to Second Amended Complaint at 10). The Answer also identifies several elements of the Plaintiff’s Complaint that are supposedly erroneous. The document explains that Stephen Bock, the president of FBMC, is not a defendant, despite being identified as such by the Plaintiff (id. at 13). It also points out that the Complaint claims FBMC published statements that were actually published by IndyStar (id. at 13). It also clarifies that the letter sent to IBC on May 23, 2025, was not a cease-and-desist, despite being identified as such by the Plaintiff in the Complaint (id. at 4–5, 11).
In its Answer, FBMC also provides three Affirmative defenses: Unclean Hands, Lack of Standing, and Venue (Answer to Second Amended Complaint at 15–16). It argues that because “IBC has knowingly, willfully, and intentionally infringed FBMC’s copyright” the Plaintiff “is disqualified from invoking the power of the Court or the legal process to pursue its Claims” (id. at 15). It also contests the venue, stating that it believes IBC “filed its case in the wrong venue” (id. at 16).
After responding to the Complaint’s allegations, the Answer continued to bring a counterclaim for copyright infringement against the Plaintiff. FBMC begins its statement of facts in support of the counterclaim by providing background for both Dr. Powell and the original work, “The Word Was God.” It explains Dr. Powell’s position “as one of the foremost composers of choral music,” describing her awards, areas of expertise and her investment in “the excellence and advancement of the choral arts” (Answer to Second Amended Complaint at 17, 18). The counterclaims also describe the 1993 composition of “The Word Was God,” which it describes as “an original work of musical authorship, combined with public domain text from the Bible” and “a carefully crafted, complex composition, with intention and artistry behind each musical choice” (id. at 19). FBMC also provides background information for itself and for the IBC, before describing the history of the conflict.
In the FBMC’s summary of the dispute it lays out the Plaintiff’s repeated requests for permission to create a “derivative work of ‘The Word Was God’ by Rosephanye Powell” (Answer to Second Amended Complaint at 22, from exhibit 4) and argues that these requests show that the Plaintiff knew that it needed permission from FBMC (id. at 26). It alleges that, despite knowing it needed permission, IBC merely renamed its derivative work “John 1” (id. at 16) and “removed all reference to Dr. Powell” (id. at 31) before continuing to infringe on FBMC’s copyright. FBMC describe how IBC proceeded to publish a recording of “John 1” in an album on May 2, 2025 (id. at 30), “[sell] ‘CDs, chord charts/sheet music, and multitracks’” of that album (id. at 31) and publicly perform the allegedly derivative work before live audiences and on social media platforms (id. at 25, 29, 31—33). FBMC provides evidence from its email communications with the Plaintiff to illustrate its requests for IBC to stop performing the work, and it expresses how IBC has financially profited from “John 1.” It chronicles how the dispute escalated to the letter sent on May 29, 2025, and to the Plaintiff’s filing of the initial Complaint on June 2, 2025 (id. at 35).
The FBMC alleges that IBC has committed copyright infringement which has harmed FBMC and asks the court to protect FBMC’s copyright, enjoin IBC from performing “John 1,” and require the Plaintiff to provide monetary relief for lost profits, statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees (id. at 35–38).
IBC initially filed an Answer to these counterclaims on October 16, 2025, and then amended its Answer on October 23, 2025. In the most recent Answer, the Plaintiff admits seeking permission from FBMC (Amended Answer to Renewed Counterclaim at 12), performing “John 1” publicly (id. at 20–27), recording “a performance related to ‘The Word Was God’” (id. at 16), publishing an album with “John 1” (id. at 22) and selling products related to that album (id. at 23). IBC also admits that “a video of [a]… performance titled “John 1” appeared on an IBC YouTube channel” (id. at 21) and that recordings of IBC’s performances of “John 1” are “widely available due to third-parties’ postings” (id. at 27).
Despite admitting to performances and recordings, IBC maintains that “John 1” is not derivative and does not require permission from FBMC (Amended Answer to Renewed Counterclaim at 13). It also denies that Dr. Powell’s “musical choices confer protectable expression beyond commonplace or unprotectable elements,” arguing that “John 1” merely sets the same public domain text as “The Word Was God” (id. at 7). Responding to FBMC’s claims about the email communication between the parties, IBC “denies that FBMC had given a ‘clear ‘no’’” to its requests for permission (id. at 18).
After responding to the counterclaims, the Plaintiff provides fifteen Affirmative Defenses, arguing that FBMC “does not own or exclusively control the rights asserted in ‘The Word Was God’” (Amended Answer to Renewed Counterclaim at 32), that “John 1” is an independent creation (id. at 32), that there is “No Substantial Similarity” between “John 1” and “The Word Was God” (apart from the public domain text) (id. at 32), and that “BMC’s own misconduct, including defamatory and reputational attacks against IBC, bars or limits the relief it seeks” (id. at 33). It also argues that if any infringement is found, it was “innocent and without knowledge,” and it can justify any similarities under Fair Use, claiming that “John 1” is “transformative, educational/religious, noncommercial,” and used in a limited amount (id. at 32). These are the most significant defenses, but there are several others including, Statute of Limitations, Failure to Mitigate Damages, Estoppel, No Secondary Liability, Third-Party Postings / Lack of Volitional Conduct, Statute of Limitations, Limits on Remedies / Apportionment, and Injunctive Relief Factors (id. at 32–33).
The case continues to progress, but its progress is complicated by arguments about venue and Dr. Powell’s role in the dispute. A scheduling order set a date for the trial on March 2, 2027, at 9:00 AM in Indianapolis, so this case seems far from over. We will provide further updates here on the blog as things progress.