Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalaith
I'm still a bit baffled by this. Firstly, because most 20th century literary figures eminent enough to have biographies written about them, have letters that are published as part of biographies, and it isn't generally seen as a problem by the estates of these writers.
Secondly, from whom did the authors obtain the letters in question, if not the family?
Thirdly, why could the letters not be paraphrased? If I paraphrased the plot of LotR I would not be in breach of copyright, although if I copied it word for word I clearly would.
|
The physical letters are presumably in the possession of Hilary's family whereas the copyright resides with the estate. So Hilary's family have the right to show them to whom they like the reproduction of the contents is verboten without the permission of the estate. "Eyes only" in effect.
As for paraphrasingtaking Dave's example, if I write "He wrote to Hilary that he had gone into Birmingham today & had tea. It had rained briefly , but then the sun had emerged giving the place an Elvish quality ". I don't think substituting some vocabulary, using reported speech and so on is enough for me to say that is no longer essentially Dave's writing. You could say that a film or radio script is essentially a paraphrase and both require the authority of the copyright holder.
All in all it seems rather sad that it has got to this stage. I don't blame the Estate for protecting its rights but it shows how tight the laager has been drawn if even Angie Gardner with the cooperation of Hilary's family has fallen foul. But the price of Tolkien being taken more seriously as an author is legitimate interest in his life. There is a danger of babies being thrown out with bathwater....