Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithalwen
I have to disagree with you. I stand by what I said. Ignorance of the law is no defence. That they never had the right to publish or exploit the letters seems clear from Calcifer's post. It isn't a result of a body "Tolkien Heirs" changing their mind and the authors being hapless victims. There are two groups of heirs with different and potentially conflicting rights. Hilary's heirs are the owners of the physical letters. They can sell them, show them to who they like burn them if they want however detrimental that would be to future scholarship. They never had copyright over them and so could not pass it on. However much they believed it it wasn't the case. It isn't an obscure piece of law. If I as a layperson know it then a publisher should. It seems very basic to check these things if their inclusion is vital to the viability of a project.
The estate for what ever reason did not grant permission, that is their right. They are not responsible for third parties wasting their time over a misapprehension.
|
A valid point,
Mithalwen, but you overlook the fact that one earlier book had already been allowed,
Black and White Ogre Country. So the case is perhaps not quite as black and white as you make it.
I don't want to belabour this point, as I don't know all the reasons and saw only some of the items, and as I reposted to discuss the general question of privacy and academic research. What I do know is that, as I said earlier, this decision follows on other situations where copyright was withdrawn, such as with the
Beowulf translation, so clearly there are multiple issues at play.
I just see it as very unfortunate, all round.