What are the permissions and copyright rules for using Cayce readings in academic studies?
Executive summary
The Edgar Cayce readings are controlled intellectual property: the Edgar Cayce Foundation (ECF) holds copyright on the readings and supplemental material (first notice 1945, registered 1971, electronic versions copyrighted since 1993) and enforces specific publication and quotation rules, including a 500‑word informal quotation limit and formal permissions beyond that threshold [1] [2] [3]. Academic use is possible but governed by a mix of ECF policy (identification, attribution, and permission requirements), archive access rules balancing research needs and confidentiality, and ordinary copyright law (including limited classroom exceptions) — researchers must follow ECF’s written procedures and cannot rely on broad educational exemptions for reproducing texts [2] [4] [5] [6].
1. Copyright ownership and history: what is protected and who controls it
The Edgar Cayce readings and their attendant background materials are copyrighted works owned by the Edgar Cayce Foundation (E.C.F.), with the first notice of copyright appearing in 1945 and formal registration of the complete set with the Library of Congress occurring in 1971; all electronic versions and subsequent modifications have been separately copyrighted and registered since 1993 [1] [2].
2. What academics may quote without asking: the 500‑word informal allowance
The E.C.F. permits writers to quote Cayce readings in published literary works without written permission only if the aggregate of all Cayce quotations in the finished product does not exceed 500 words, and those quotations must reproduce Cayce’s original wording as presented in authorized E.C.F. sources and meet specified presentation conditions [3].
3. Formal permission, attribution rules, and practical requirements for larger excerpts
If scholarly work will use more than the 500‑word threshold or relies heavily on Cayce material, the E.C.F. typically requires formal written permission, often accompanied by contractual terms, fees or royalties; when permission is granted a signed letter of permission will be issued and publication must carry the E.C.F.’s prescribed copyright notice and reading identification format (e.g., “Edgar Cayce Reading 254‑5”) on the front pages or opposite the title page [1] [3].
4. Archival access, confidentiality, and publication constraints
Researchers can access the E.C.F. collections for study under the foundation’s reference policy and repository rules, but authorization to publish, quote or reproduce materials from the archival collection must be obtained from the E.C.F.; the foundation explicitly frames this as balancing researcher access with the confidentiality of individuals discussed in the case files [4] [2].
5. How U.S. academic copyright exceptions interact with E.C.F. policy
Standard academic exceptions such as fair use and certain classroom performance/display rules do exist under U.S. copyright law, but institutions must apply them carefully: the TEACH Act and similar classroom exemptions do not cover general reproduction or distribution of textual readings, meaning instructors and researchers cannot assume they can redistribute full readings electronically in a course without permission [7] [5] [6].
6. Practical steps for scholars and risk considerations
Scholars planning to quote Cayce readings should: verify wording against E.C.F. authorized texts, keep total quoted material under 500 words where possible to avoid formal permission, use the E.C.F.’s required citation format and front‑page copyright notice, and contact the E.C.F. early if the project will use longer excerpts or publish archival case details — failure to follow these published policies risks denial of publication rights or legal dispute, and the E.C.F. has signaled that permission for heavy quotation is “seldom” given without contractual terms [3] [1] [4].
7. Conflicting incentives and transparency to watch for
The E.C.F.’s policies reflect dual aims: enabling scholarly access while protecting privacy and the foundation’s control (and potential revenue) over published Cayce material; researchers should therefore anticipate administrative scrutiny, possible fees, and conditions that serve the foundation’s institutional interests as well as copyright law rather than assuming unrestricted academic use [2] [1].