Bloomsday and Copyright Run Amok
In Property Law there is a doctrine (much-feared by law students for its complexity) known as the Rule Against Perpetuities. We are taught that this rule is in part motivated by society’s strong distaste for “dead-hand control” of property. Those who are long gone have had their chance to benefit from their property, and the living know best how to put the property to its most efficient current use. So if we recognize the problems of dead-hand control with regards to real property, and if the Copyright-maximalist crowd wants to constantly call their exclusive right “property” then why don’t we show greater concern over dead-hand control in the Copyright arena? It’s not as if it doesn’t create similar or greater harm. Read on:
Literary lion’s watchdog is muzzled
By Angelique Chrisafis in Dublin
June 4, 2004
He is the man literary Ireland fears most.
Stephen Joyce, the highly litigious grandson of Ireland’s great writer James Joyce has devoted his life to fiercely protecting his grandfather’s copyright, and has never been slow to set his lawyers on those foolhardy enough to take the Joyce name in vain or to reproduce Joyce’s words without consent.
Few are spared. He has targeted publishing houses, internet readings, and an Edinburgh fringe musical using Molly Bloom’s soliloquy from Ulysses. An Irish composer who requested permission to quote 18 words of Finnegans Wake received a refusal letter saying: “To put it politely, my wife and I don’t like your music.”
But now, fearful for this month’s mammoth celebrations of Joyce’s masterpiece Ulysses, Irish MPs this week rushed through emergency legislation that will prevent Mr Joyce from suing the Government and the National Library over an exhibition which displays 500 pages of Joyce manuscripts bought for €12.6 million ($22million) in 2002. “James Joyce and Ulysses” forms the centrepiece of the Rejoyce festival commemorating the centenary of Bloomsday, the day on which Ulysses was set.
Stephen Joyce had warned the Government and the library he would take any copyright infringement seriously.
Mr Joyce, now in his 70s, is the writer’s only living descendant. He lives in France and has made lots of money suing for copyright infringement and fees for rights.
The Government said it was acting to close a copyright loophole that affected all writers, but intellectuals were quick to bemoan a culture of fear surrounding the representation of Joyce’s works.
Senator David Norris, a Joycean scholar, told colleagues in the Irish Senate: “It is an astonishing irony that a man such as James Joyce, who fought for freedom of expression . . . and committed himself so totally against censorship, should now find his works being . . . removed from public gaze by his own estate.”
The Guardian
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203561354.html
(If the above link disappears, there is another version of the article by the same author.)
So, in at least one instance, the UK got it. It makes no sense to give a freeloading grandson of a creative author the right to hassle people 100 years after a work is created. It certainly doesn’t promote the progress of science and useful arts. We need this not just for Joyce’s work, but for all copyrighted works. I would prefer a system where a copyright dies with its original holder (if not much sooner!), but if anyone really believes that authors on their death beds are motivated to create by the thought of providing for their heirs, then I would compromise for life of the author plus 18 years. That way even a not-quite born heir would have the chance to benefit from royalties until s/he reaches adulthood. From then on, you’re on your own. Currently the law is life plus 70 years. That’s too much dead-hand control. (Note: I would most prefer a return to our original copyright term of 14 years renewable once for an additional 14 years, not to exceed 28 years total. And software is a different story altogether. Given the rate of development in that industry the term should probably be no longer than 5 years.)
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.