Translations and versions prior to 1923 are not. However newer editions such as the New English Translation (2005) and American King James (1999) would still be protected. Commentary and concordances may also be protected (i.e., a heavily-notated King James would be protected, even though the underlying text is from 1611).
The original work is probably in the public domain. Modern translations of the bible, however, are almost certainly protected by copyright.
No. You could copyright a drawing or photograph of the logo but the logo itself would have to be protected as a trademark.
It depends on the translation you're using. In the US, pre-1923 translations are in the public domain, and 1923 and later translations are likely to be protected by copyright.
Individual words are not protected by copyright.
Yes.
Yes. All of the photos taken in the movie are protected by copyright.
Once a work of sufficient originality is fixed in a tangible medium, it is automatically protected by copyright.
Short phrases cannot be protected by copyright, but there are several registered trademarks for that phrase.
Yes; architectural works are protected.
The 1952 movie is protected by copyright, and will likely be protected through 2047.
The physical tape is not protected by copyright; the content on it probably is. Commercially produced tapes are certainly protected.
The content of a presentation is protected by copyright as soon as it is "fixed."