 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Vincent Le Chevalier
Subject: Copyright and sequels of 'Les Misérables'
Date: 19 Dec 2008 17:53:39
Message: <494c25f3$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some surprising debate going on in France about this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/3852586/Victor-Hugos-family-loses-battle-to-ban-sequels.html
Frankly I'm amazed that people find something there to debate. The
sequels do not harm the original work in the slightest way, and the
original work is in the public domain anyway.
And yet the case seems to be hard to decide, with Hugo's family actually
winning one trial. I'm at a loss :-\
Any similar debate in other countries? Just to undermine my faith in
humanity a little bit more ;-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Vincent Le Chevalier" <gal### [at] libertyALLsurfSP AMfr> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:494c25f3$1@news.povray.org...
> Any similar debate in other countries? Just to undermine my faith in
> humanity a little bit more ;-)
I don't think this could happen in Germany. Here, so-and-so-many years (I
guess something like 70) after an author's death his works are free for the
taking in every respect. Maybe the press might jump on such topics though,
ranting about cultural decline and all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
While the sequels sound like they're in poor taste, I think the legal
situation is quite clear. The work is in the public domain, and other
authors are free to do as they with it.
It's too bad that someone would, though.
Still, I find the final sentence in the article amusing:
"A lawyer for Hugo's heir said that the decision would open the door to a
flood of contemporary sequels to other classics such as Flaubert's Madame
Bovary."
Apparently, this lawyer doesn't understand public domain; classic works
such as this have *always* been open to modern sequels.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
CLipka wrote:
> I don't think this could happen in Germany. Here, so-and-so-many years (I
> guess something like 70) after an author's death his works are free for the
> taking in every respect.
Now, here's the next question ... Can you take a 90-year-old American movie,
make copies in Germany, and then sell them in America? That wouldn't seem
like anyone is violating copyright laws.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> "A lawyer for Hugo's heir said that the decision would open the door to a
> flood of contemporary sequels to other classics such as Flaubert's Madame
> Bovary."
Yeah, because, you know, Grease was such a flop as a movie.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Vincent Le Chevalier
Subject: Re: Copyright and sequels of 'Les Misérables'
Date: 20 Dec 2008 17:48:21
Message: <494d7635$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
CLipka a écrit :
> "Vincent Le Chevalier" <gal### [at] libertyALLsurfSPAMfr> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:494c25f3$1@news.povray.org...
>> Any similar debate in other countries? Just to undermine my faith in
>> humanity a little bit more ;-)
>
> I don't think this could happen in Germany. Here, so-and-so-many years (I
> guess something like 70) after an author's death his works are free for the
> taking in every respect. Maybe the press might jump on such topics though,
> ranting about cultural decline and all.
>
Well yes, as far as I understand the situation is similar in France,
though I'm not sure about the time period involved. Hugo's work is in
public domain allright.
But french law also defines a moral right that the author can exert,
preventing modifications and more generally enforcing the respect of his
work. This moral right never expires, and can be transfered to heirs ad
infinitum. I think the trials are fought based on this right.
However, I thought that this right essentially prevented modifications
or even destruction of the work, changes of attribution and so on. I
think it's fine though I'm not too sure it should be transfered to
descendants. But here the original work is not touched at all... In
essence it's a bit as if they were trying to prevent anyone from writing
something bad about the original books.
I guess we'll have to find the authors of the New Testament and sue them
for trying to write a somewhat disparaging sequel to the Old Testament :-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> Now, here's the next question ... Can you take a 90-year-old American
> movie,
> make copies in Germany, and then sell them in America? That wouldn't
> seem
> like anyone is violating copyright laws.
Why go to Germany? Such a thing is legal in the US.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyALLsurfSPAMfr> wrote:
> Some surprising debate going on in France about this:
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/3852586/Victor-Hugos-family-loses-battle-to-ban-sequels.html
>
> Frankly I'm amazed that people find something there to debate.
Indeed. Isn't that quite like the sequels to "Gone with the Wind" in the USA?
Personally, I'd love to see fan-made reworks of classical cartoon characters,
but Disney and company just don't let them go. Disney is like a walking corpse
and the copyright will never expire...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Why go to Germany? Such a thing is legal in the US.
Don't nitpick. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-Dec-08 23:48, Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> CLipka a écrit :
>
> I guess we'll have to find the authors of the New Testament and sue them
> for trying to write a somewhat disparaging sequel to the Old Testament :-)
>
I wasn't aware that the old testament as written in France. Can you
prove that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Vincent Le Chevalier
Subject: Re: Copyright and sequels of 'Les Misérables'
Date: 21 Dec 2008 05:37:52
Message: <494e1c80$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel a écrit :
> On 20-Dec-08 23:48, Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
>>
>> I guess we'll have to find the authors of the New Testament and sue
>> them for trying to write a somewhat disparaging sequel to the Old
>> Testament :-)
>>
> I wasn't aware that the old testament as written in France. Can you
> prove that?
No, but I wasn't aware either that only French people were into futile
lawsuits. Can you prove that ;-) ?
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier a écrit :
> Some surprising debate going on in France about this:
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/3852586/Victor-Hugos-family-loses-battle-to-ban-sequels.html
>
>
> Frankly I'm amazed that people find something there to debate. The
> sequels do not harm the original work in the slightest way, and the
> original work is in the public domain anyway.
In France (and Europe, generally), author's rights are divided into two
distinct parts :
- patrimonial, which ensures author can get money from his work.
Patrimonial rights are inherited, and heirs keep getting money up
until 70 years after the author's death.
- moral rights, which ensures the author has control over what
is done with his works. Moral rights NEVER expire. Respect is
due to the works forever; for example, you can't normally publish
a modified version of "hamlet", where you changed some random words,
or say you wrote it yourself...
However, I'm not sure WHO is legally entitled to the moral rights
control after the patrimonial ones are extinct. I would think that
the Hugo family is no more qualified than you and I to do so.
I don't see on which legal basis any judge would rule in their favor.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien a écrit :
> However, I'm not sure WHO is legally entitled to the moral rights
> control after the patrimonial ones are extinct. I would think that
> the Hugo family is no more qualified than you and I to do so.
> I don't see on which legal basis any judge would rule in their favor.
(after some more reading...)
Well, I was wrong, moral right is perpetually inherited !!!
see here :
http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2007/3/article19.fr.html
"Le droit moral est “perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible. Il est
transmis à cause de mort aux héritiers de l’auteur"
Which is absurd, ridiculous, and unmanageable after 2 or 3 generations !
(how many of Hugo's heirs are there now ?)
The court had enough wisdom, but the law allows for many disasters to
come...
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:16:37 +0100, Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe>
wrote:
> Respect is
> due to the works forever; for example, you can't normally publish
> a modified version of "hamlet", where you changed some random words,
> or say you wrote it yourself...
Sorry to contradict you Fabian but that is a bad example. Most of Shakespeare's
plays are published in different versions probably because none of them were
published by him. All of the plays we have are copies from memory or from actors
working parts. There is also a tradition of adapting them, for instance Westside
Story is an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen [mailto:mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom]
> There is also a tradition of adapting them, for instance
> Westside
> Story is an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.
Adaptations are a bad example, because you're changing enough that it is
still considered a new work.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
I said "share," not "scare!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:07:05 -0800, "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen [mailto:mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom]
>> There is also a tradition of adapting them, for instance
>> Westside
>> Story is an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.
>
>Adaptations are a bad example, because you're changing enough that it is
>still considered a new work.
>
That is a good point but with Shakespeare's work what are you changing? There
are three quarto and four folio editions none of which were published by
Shakespeare and they all differ, some significantly. Furthermore, when putting
on a production of a play it is not uncommon for lines, speeches and even scenes
to be cut. This is not generally termed an adaptation.
I just meant to say to Fabien that even tho' Shakespeare is held in great esteem
his words are not sacrosanct. So much so that in Victorian times the ending of
Romeo and Juliet was changed so that they both lived happily ever after. O_O
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
