Comments on: Ozymandias Lessons for Copyright http://madisonian.net/2009/11/18/ozymandis-lessons-for-copyright/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:58:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Deven http://madisonian.net/2009/11/18/ozymandis-lessons-for-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-301233 Deven Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:34:34 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=3448#comment-301233 Yes. It is understandable. I think, however, that sympathy or even empathy has led to policy based on a small group's ability to tug at heart strings and to conflate works with people. The dead are simply dead. As a theoretical matter, I don't think using heirs interests, as you identify them (quite well), provides a sound way to guide copyright. Yet, I suggest that those impulses animate policy to copyright's detriment. Yes. It is understandable. I think, however, that sympathy or even empathy has led to policy based on a small group’s ability to tug at heart strings and to conflate works with people. The dead are simply dead. As a theoretical matter, I don’t think using heirs interests, as you identify them (quite well), provides a sound way to guide copyright. Yet, I suggest that those impulses animate policy to copyright’s detriment.

]]> By: C.E. Petit http://madisonian.net/2009/11/18/ozymandis-lessons-for-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-301044 C.E. Petit Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:08:17 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=3448#comment-301044 I strongly suspect that many -- and probably most -- of the "restrictive quotation heirs" are in the end more concerned with ruling out certain types of literary methods than they are with the money. That certainly seems to be the case for Joyce, Elliot, Plath, Beckett, and certain others I could name but for conflicts. There is a common thread among the four literary estates that I've named: Substantial quasiacademic controversy over the relationship between biography/personality and the works themselves. It's one thing entirely to say "the author is not the work"; it's another thing to say "the author's personality, as reflected in particular interpretations of the work(s), has nothing to do with the personality of the author's heir(s)." Particularly given the extreme pressure for outrageous-revisionism-as-a-path-to-tenure on humanities faculties, I find it entirely unsurprising that heirs would have a blanket aversion to that sort of scholarship. I'm not defending that aversion in substance; I'm only saying that I understand it, and that goes double for poets. I strongly suspect that many — and probably most — of the “restrictive quotation heirs” are in the end more concerned with ruling out certain types of literary methods than they are with the money. That certainly seems to be the case for Joyce, Elliot, Plath, Beckett, and certain others I could name but for conflicts.

There is a common thread among the four literary estates that I’ve named: Substantial quasiacademic controversy over the relationship between biography/personality and the works themselves. It’s one thing entirely to say “the author is not the work”; it’s another thing to say “the author’s personality, as reflected in particular interpretations of the work(s), has nothing to do with the personality of the author’s heir(s).” Particularly given the extreme pressure for outrageous-revisionism-as-a-path-to-tenure on humanities faculties, I find it entirely unsurprising that heirs would have a blanket aversion to that sort of scholarship. I’m not defending that aversion in substance; I’m only saying that I understand it, and that goes double for poets.

]]>