Slashdot Mirror
Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties
wabrandsma writes with this from The Guardian: The estate of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's minister of propaganda, is taking legal action against the publisher Random House over a new biography, claiming payment for the use of extracts from his diaries. Peter Longerich's biography of Goebbels is to be published in May (Random House/ Siedler). Longerich, who is the professor at Royal Holloway's Holocaust Research Centre, maintains this case has important censorship implications. 'If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research,' he said.
Up front confession: haven't read the article, but unless the diaries are in the public domain, isn't this pretty cut and dry? If the diaries are in private hands, they're in private hands and you need permission to use their contents.
Doesn't Germany have the equivilent of a Son of Sam law where criminals and their heirs can't earn a profit from their heinous acts?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Then by definition, it does give control. That is part of what property rights entails, isn't it?
Now whether the terms of usage are acceptable or not, that is another story. It might be this biography falls within the boundaries of fair use, or it might not. That is a question of fact, and a bit different from a legal notion which can be discussed in the abstract.
the road goes on forever....as "Ich bin ein Berliner" does.
That man Goebbels has a sneer in every picture of him I've ever seen - poor man.
I wondered who was left alive to claim to be his heirs or the recipients of his estate - he and his wife kill all six of their kids.
Imagine the character of the people fighting over the legacy of that man...I'm nauseated.
I'm hoping this biography is being made available for free, if they're truly concerned about money being made from Goebbels’ work.
I'm surprised Goebbels even HAS an estate. I would have thought that the end of the war would have brought the end of all of the Nazi leaders' estates.
Takes "copyright Nazis" to a whole new level. Since Goebbel's diaries were associated with his crimes (as others have pointed out), I hope this doesn't get far. There is no reason his descendants should profit from his notoriety.
Before I typed 1 char an autoplaying ad started rolling somewhere on this page I can't see it. So fuck this shit I dont even care anymore.
Here we have two parties trying to make a profit off of Goebbels' notoriety, with one of them licensing out his diaries, and the other trying to play a ridiculous game of semantics to avoid paying them. If the publisher was giving the book away, fine, but you don't have the right to break licensing just because it was an evil man. Now if there's a Son of Sam law in place, you might have a case, but clearly there must not be if you're stooping to "censorship" as the world's flimsiest argument to not have to pay up.
A private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries until a court of law declares otherwise or they fall into the public domain for some other reason. Courts should have done this in the aftermath of WWII, but Germans wanted these copyrights to remain valid in order to control such writings. The writings could also have come into the public domain as part of some settlement to civil claims against the Goebbels estate. But since neither seems to have happened, the copyright still appears to be valid.
Arguing as if "research" should be exempted from the usual rule of law is particularly embarrassing for a German professor studying the Holocaust, since many atrocities were committed in the Third Reich because German academics considered themselves above the law and got away with it.
If Longerich can't make a convincing argument that these works are in the public domain or that he falls under a well-defined legal exemption, he can join the rest of us and work towards shorter copyright terms, broader fair use exemptions, and less draconian laws. Of course, he could also demonstrate good will by licensing his own works under a CC license.
'Initially, he feared that Schacht would take out an injunction against the book, preventing its publication altogether. Determined to avoid the destruction of any books “on the grounds of a claim from Goebbels”, he agreed to pay her 1% of the net retail price.
He said: “When she wanted to cash in on that agreement, I said that agreement is null and void It’s against the moral rights You haven’t been entitled to sell me any words as those words lie within the Bavarian government.”'
The author agreed to pay a 1% royalty and then reneged when the heir tried to collect. Of course that triggered a lawsuit.
It seems that the bigger problem here is that modern copyright is so unreasonably long, historical documents are still under copyright. Anything over the original 28 year copyright term is really robbing the next generation of history.
Did Nazi that coming . . . .
Longerich, who is the professor at Royal Holloway's Holocaust Research Centre, maintains this case has important censorship implications. 'If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research,' he said.
I don't agree with that assessment, especially when I watch the RIAA and MPAA go to work.
His copyright hasn't expired, his family (or estate) has a right to control his works, and Longerich should pay up.
However, I am basing this on US copyright law, I'm not sure if that applies here.
http://www.copyright.gov/title...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
A more credible witness is the recently deceased Thuringian resident Clare Werner. On March 4, 1945, Werner, who was standing on a nearby hillside, witnessed an explosion in a military training area near the town of Ohrdruf.
"It was about 9:30 when I suddenly saw something ... it was as bright as hundreds of bolts of lightning, red on the inside and yellow on the outside, so bright you could've read the newspaper. It all happened so quickly, and then we couldn't see anything at all. We just noticed there was a powerful wind..." The woman complained of "nose bleeds, headaches and pressure in the ears."
What if the Nazi's had beat us too it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This sort of thing is precisely what the "Fair Use" excemption in copyright law is for. How can there even be a legal question about this, at least in US law for Random House?
I had always heard that German intellectual property was confiscated by the Allies as part of the surrender. For a senior Nazi like Goebbels, even a private diary should fall under that category.
I guess I had heard wrong. Pity.
Freedom of information as well as freedom of speech are ruined when we allow a concept such as copyright to exist. To even suggest that the diary in question was an economic effort on the type of its dead author (may he roast in hell) or that those economic rights could somehow be transferred to other people after the author's death is just wrong. And frankly even the idea that German law can be respected when it once went so far astray is offensive in itself.
'If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research"
What a load of bullshit. Diaries are private and just because Goebbels died as the person he was doesn't make his diaries public domain material. His estate has full ownership of his private diaries and researchers should pay to use them. Just like the researchers wouldn't publicly make available their diaries. Hypocrit researcher, nothing more.
"No man is above the law and no man is below it".
It's convenient to label some people we don't like as complete outlaws but it's a sign of barbarism that just leads to things like rounding up and killing minorities which is the sort of thing we fought a war against people such as Goebbels to stop.
Random House should reply to this demand with "fuck off, you nazi cunt", and leave it up to a jury to decide whether Goebbels' heirs deserve any money.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Cordula Schacht was transferred the estate, including copyright to all of Goebbels' works, by Francois Genoud before his suicide in 1996. Genoud was the will executor for and held the posthumous rights to works of Hitler, Goebbels and Bormann. Both Genoud and Schacht were/are key figures in the nazi scene. Genoud, a Swiss banker, had financed the nazis since the 1930s. After the war he also financed other antisemitic movements such as Palestinian terrorists, the Carlos group etc. This connection to Arab nationalists goes back to the Grand Mufti. Genoud was Hjalmar Schacht's Arab connection, and Cordula Schacht was Genoud's legal and financial assistant. The article fails to explain that background.
From German wikipedia (my translation):
Hey, if it is the "intellectual property" of the estate, then the estate is allowed the income from it. But then the estate is also liable for all the associated negative consequences.
You cannot own it half. I say: take the income? Be responsible and pay off all children of nazi victims.
Since Goebbels died on May 1st, 1945 - would the copyright on his diaries expire in two weeks (2015-05-01)?
OK,if Goebbels wants; to get it canned because there are errors in it, then fair enough, if he turns up and gives evidence of the errors, the errored account can be removed.
But you cannot use copyright to censor news and reporting of public figures. That's been pretty much established as overriding internationally copyrights.
So the estate has little to claim on.
Of course I do NOT agree with someone just publishing the entire diary as a work alone. That's not reporting. That's just copying.
But if there's commentary on the diary and that commentary sufficient in comparison to the diary itself to make the diary the addendum and reference to the work, then the publishing is fine.
Though to some extent you're right: you can't charge a US or UK government leader for "helping to carry out a war" by telling people they are going to war (not really "helping" as "making it happen" in modern times, but that's not because we legally cannot, but that those governments will nuke or invade a country that dares to demand it.
Though it WOULD be interesting to see Poodle Blair and/or Shrub's diplomatic plane brought down and them hauled out and rushed off to jail to face court charges.
but unless the diaries are in the public domain, isn't this pretty cut and dry? If the diaries are in private hands, they're in private hands and you need permission to use their contents.
AFAIK, legally it is pretty cut and dry.
The question is:
Should it be or should there be changes in the legislation? And if you change legislation, where do you draw the line?
Because there is currently a LOT of material that might be interesting for researchers, but is only accessible if you pay a fee. As in, most material controlled by scientific publishers such as Elsevier.
With fees of some 10 dollars per article, buying access to one or two articles is affordable enough, but if you want to review some dozen to get an overview of your field of research it becomes expensive. Depending on your budget, perhaps prohibitively expensive.
The current case is no different:
The estate of Joseph Goebbels does not want to forbid the use of the diaries but they want royalties for the extracts. So there is some financial obstacle to research.
Personally, I'm in favor for easier access to scientific materials if they were created with public funds. Perhaps by putting a clause in the work contract of the researchers that they give their employers shared publishing rights. :-)
In case of some old Nazi diaries though, I'd prefer the simple approach of waiting another 8 1/2 months. After 2015, almost all of those will be in the public domain anyway
C - the footgun of programming languages
And then asking for money for anything he ever did or said? That takes some arrogance. Anyway, I wouldn't fear to go to court over this. I can't see how a German court would rule in a way that would look like protecting the legacy of a big-time WW2 criminal. Ha, that would make for some interesting headlines in all major newspapers around the world :)
> The estate of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's minister of propaganda
That sounds like mechanical, as if an estate is a kind of a station wagon? No, in this case it means a bunch of nazi people and their minions. Each and every one of them can be shot or poisoned by the Mossad or simply made to disappear, to make this world a better place. Massada must not fall again!
In about 2 weeks it's 70 years that Goebbels died.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Even excerpts of a diary would probably not be covered by "reporting". But hell, just wait. He died on May 1st 1945. Copyright in Europe is, if memory serves me right, life of author + 70 years.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
www.nazigassings.com
People are in prison, in GERMANY, right now, for proving that the 'Holocaust' couldn't have happened.
Wouldn't it be a GOOD thing if somebody proved that six millions Jews were NOT killed in the Second World War?
Since the daughter of Hitler's finance minister is suing the publishers in Germany, it's German law that matters.
IANAL, but... While the EU copyright directive allows states to legislate for Fair Use, it seems that German statute law does not include such a provision. However, German courts have in the past relied on provisions in the German Constitution which state that Art and Research are free, to allow some reuse of portions of a work (see paper). However it's not necessarily clear how the court might rule in this case. And besides, there is the issue of the publisher having previously agreed to pay, and then deciding not to. There could be questions of the validity and enforceability of such an agreement. And there is the question of whether the lady concerned is in fact the copyright owner.
So there is plenty for lawyers to fight over.
But I find it quite distasteful that research could be blocked, or charged for in this way. That's why much of the world DOES have [fairly] clear "Fair Use" or "Fair Dealing" exceptions in copyright law.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
The fact that we're discussing the copyright and royalty payments on Joseph F'ing Goebbels diaries should tell everyone something about the crazy length of copyright terms... the seeds being laid in a "trade agreement" (of course) signed days after Geronimo surrendered. That same year Benz patented his gasoline internal combustion engine-driven vehicle, a/k/a the "first automobile". If patents (or I should say: inventors) got equal treatment with copyrights in 1886 (authors etc.) our world would look very different.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As a 'newsworthy' person, surely Goebbels' diary can be excerpted for the purpose of writing a biography, right? I could see the estate's point if Random House was simply republishing Goebbels' diary.
Since when are the estates of war criminals entitled to /anything/? Especially in this case. If I were the publisher, I'd tell them right were to stuff it.
Seems like all movies that profit off of heinous acts should have to go to repay the victims of their crimes.
In ALL cases, every single one, EVER - victims became victims cause nobody heard or acted upon their cries for help.
Victims are acutely aware of that.
And they are aware of how valuable and invaluable it is to just have someone tell their story to the world.
Even if it is told badly. Like with "Mississippi Burning".
Which beats almost every single movie about Vietnam war - a war that was totally only about Americans and how THEY suffered.
Which again beats every single movie NOT made about Jeju uprising, regarding the mass executions, burning of villages, rape and the following coverup which lasted for some 60 years.
In a friendly, forward thinking, western democracy of South Korea.
Just like the Bodo League massacre and systematic mass execution of hundreds of thousands of "communist sympathizers".
Covered up for over 40 years... and clearly not considered a big deal.
Not big enough to warrant a movie, anyway.
Movies, like books, are primarily works of CULTURE AND ART AND STORYTELLING - and neither of those can ultimately belong to one person or a group of persons any more than the works of Shakespeare or the Bible or the Greek myths do.
Someone can own a block of wood with a Mona Lisa painted on it - but no one can own Mona Lisa no more than anyone can own the letter 'A'.
That's why we have copyright laws.
To assure that those who create/produce that cultural wealth FOR EVERYONE get paid something in exchange for their effort in creating something that is only valuable if everyone has free access to it.
Because you can't stop someone from seeing a movie or hearing a song - not if you ever want to make money out of showing them a movie or playing them a song.
It must be free and available to everyone so you could charge money for it.
Jerry Lewis can't charge people money for "The Day the Clown Cried". Even if he wanted to. Or if they did. And though they do.
Human art is designed to be appreciated and experienced and absorbed by other humans.
If it wasn't so easy for humans to experience that art and culture without paying or even trying (just quiz yourself about a movie you are not at all interested in - like Twilight or 50 Shades of Gray) no regulation would be needed.
Hell... you can chase down a thief and make him either burn up the calories in that apple he stole from you, beat it out of him or make him throw it up.
No amount of force or persuasion can make someone unwatch a movie or unhear a song. Sadly, in many cases.
So we have laws to try to make sure that at least some people pay for what they willingly experience.
BUT... as those laws are about monetary compensation to the creators of that art, we are fed a story that it is "all about the money" and that the movies are "just business".
Which is not true even for the most commercial of all art - pornography.
We can joke that it does not matter as long as there's sex in it - but we can't ignore the fact that there are porn STARS, and then there are "others".
Meaning that even with a movie that is so cheap to produce, both artistically and monetarily, where actor's skills are down to simple physical attributes and looks, and which is produced to satisfy such a base need - people will demand more than just a "recording of two people fucking for money".
And people will favor those who produce more than just a "recording" - thus creating popularity and fame for those performers who do "more than just recording".
That favoritism will not create MORE money though. It will only cut out of the picture those who produce only "recordings".
Even in such an utterly commercial field of film making, the goal is towards more than just money and money earned alone does not equal success nor is it the
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
At the end of the war, Goebbels and his wife killed his six (young) children and then he and his wife committed suicide. His estate should have died with him, his wife, children, and the nazi party.
If you mention Pol Pot they have no idea who he was, if you mention the Armenian genocide they will also have no idea what that is.
I bet they would if you went to regions concerned. The holocaust is well known in the west because we were all involved in the war that was fought to stop it and many families lost members fighting it. We were far less involved in the Armenian genocide, Pol Pots regime or the countless other genocides (like the more recent one in Uganda). That does not make them any less terrible but it does make them far less a part of our history than WW2.
You should write it instead of cut and paste?
There is fair use, and there is lifting the work of another person. If this were an academic paper, I would be far more lenient. but this is a book written to sell a lot of books. The purpose is to make money here, and not letting publishers get a free ride is precisely why there are copyright laws.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I thought it was illegal to profit from a criminal activity. How is it that there is such a thing a Goebbels's estate at all? All of Goebbels's notoriety comes from his participation in a government the actions of which were declared to be a crime against humanity. How is anyone allowed to profit from that?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Just wait a year and then there REALLY won't be an issue.
That's what people thought in the mid-1990s until the European Union extended the copyright term by twenty years from the Berne minimum of 50 years after the end of the year in which the last surviving author dies to a longer term of 70 years after the end of the same year.
PROTIP: Copywriting means creating text for an advertisement. Copyright refers to the exclusive right to reproduce said advertisement. Confusing the two marks you as someone who has never read a copyright statute.
Fair use differs from country to country. The Berne Convention allows limits on the scope of copyright that do "not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author" but does not require such limits. This means fair use in Germany may have a scope far smaller than that of fair use in the United States.
The term used to be life of author plus 50 years, and I think that was in effect when the document was written, so copyright has probably expired already.
Any extension of the copyright term that becomes law extends the copyright term of all works whose copyright still subsists as of the date the extension becomes effective. This is the approach the United States adopted in the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. This U.S. law was a response to an even broader European Union law that restored copyright in works that had already entered the public domain. The EU copyright term directive had as its goal harmonizing not only the copyright term but also the set of copryighted works: if a work was under copyright in any member state, the copyright was restored in all. And at the time, Germany already had the longest copyright term of life plus 70 years.
The life plus 70 plus end of year copyright term gives the Bundestag until December 31, 2015, to pass a bill that extends the term of subsisting copyrights.
If his estate want's to claim copyright, Joseph Goebbels' victims should also have the right to sue said estate for various forms of damages.
Really, who in the hell would want to control Goebel's estate? And admit that fact in public?
Why did the English press even bring that up now? The trial started last July, and I can find no reports on it past November. And none in English media - until now. Is there some scandal in the UK that needs covering up?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
It should be noted, that the diaries were originally recovered by the Allies after WWII. They are critically important for future research as they shed light on the changing of Goebbels thinking. Goebbels was originally a Gregor Strasser Nazi Socialist but changed over to become a pure, loyal Hitler Nazi. If you read many of the historic books about Nazism (such as William Shirer's classic/excellent book R&Fallor3rdR...), you'll see that Goebbels diaries are heavily referenced in those books. Goebbels himself realized how important they were to history and took great pains to reserve them. They are also handy for disputing many hair brained politically minded ignoramus bloggers that pop up with crazy ideas every now and then. One other thought. I'm not a lawyer, but the diaries span from 1925 onward in many books. I am certain many of the books are in the public domain.