Quote:
Originally Posted by Bęthberry
The flaw in your argument, davem is that not all the members of the family are dead.
.
|
Which is why we have libel, slander & privacy laws - to protect the living: if Copyright was intended to include protecting privacy then you wouldn't need the others. If these letters were implying dodgy stuff involving living members of the family then the family would have a range of legal options they could make use of. To use copyright to prevent material being made public, implies that it is not material that relates to anyone living, but stuff that they don't want to come out about Ronald or Hilary
Quote:
'Dear Hilary, I was just thinking the other day about the jolly times we had dressing as Elizabethen ladies & cycling through the lanes round Sarehole after dark, throwing ferrets through people's windows....Happy days!'
Estate's response: Blimey! we have to stop this hitting the presses! Isn't that libelous?
Laywer: Er, no - you can't libel the dead! Besides, it looks like they might have done it - there were reports around the time of people in Sarehole waking up to find their front windows smashed & dazed ferrets on their fireside rugs.
Estate: Well, that's as maybe but surely other young bucks in those days did similar things? Look, just tell them the letters are copyrighted & they can't use them.
Laywer: Are you sure, that's not what copyright is for?
Estate: Just do it - A) its a bit embarrassing for the family for their dad & uncle to be seen as cross dressing ferret-tossers & B) we don't want the descendants suing us for the broken windows.
|
Its probably nothing more than something with a minor embarrassment factor
at worst. I'm not even necessarily arguing that whatever it is
should be published - just that using copyright in these circumstances is a bit off. After all the Estate have never implied that whatever it is that being referred to isn't true.