Who does it belong to?

That's a thought-provoking question.

I guess it's when the work is so well-known that the author's attempt to alter it creates a general outrage.

ewwwwwww....nice, nasty little IP thread, Lori. And it bodes well to be one where I'll find my opinions divided.

With Nabokov, I understand that only the wife (now deceased) and the son are his heirs, correct? Up to this point, they have dropped the ball. Nabokov's will specifically instructed that the manuscript be destroyed. It's been thirty years for Chrissakes--as the executors of Nabokov's estate it was their legal obligation to follow his final wishes. Add to that my own particular theory that 50 index cards does not a novel make--burn them.

But Albee (and The Zoo Story is not one of my favorite plays) is a different story. Here, he has taken his own intellectual property after it was published and produced in the agreed-upon, contracted form and changed it while forbidding further use of the original story. I can see a Zoo Story, Director's Cut sort of thing where he does his new, preferred format of it but this? Err...somehow I don't like it. How many times has the Zoo Story been performed in the last half a century? How many royalties have been paid for each performance? Are we to now infer that Albee, by his own admission, has conceded that the original script is somehow substandard? Even though I heartily dislike (okay despise) Albee's work, I can't help but think that isn't a good thing for either the theatrical world or the writers within it.

Copyright? I think as long as the author or the estate owns the copyright, it still belongs to the author. Now, when it comes to altering published/produced work... I don't know. Is such work set in stone once it hits the market? I mean, we all know George Lucas loves to tinker with his work long after they're done, much to the outrage of his fans. So one can argue that once it's out there, the author shouldn't really touch it... on the other hand, it is his work, and his name is on it, and it will be remembered as such long after he's dead -- he has every right to make it what he wants before he's dead. Or does he?

but George Lucas didn't forbid the sale or playing of his original work in preference of his redone work. That's the inherent difference.

It belongs to the public as soon as it becomes public, the author can choose to tinker with it as long as they want, but they shouldn't have the right to remove an existing version of it.

mscelina said:

but George Lucas didn't forbid the sale or playing of his original work in preference of his redone work. That's the inherent difference.

Click to expand...

I wonder. I'll give odds that if you air Return of the Jedi that you damn well better show the one with Aniken as a ghost and not the one with the original old Darth who portrayed it.

But even so, its his property. He has control. He can tinker with it as he will. The same with Albee. If he feels, after all these years, that something was missing, I think he has the right to add it. Not so sure he has the right to demand anyone to only perform the new version though.

And my opinion of Nabokov, well, publish it already. I think anyone who is a fan of his work deserves to see how his mind worked when creating a story. Many fans like that sort of thing.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I wonder. I'll give odds that if you air Return of the Jedi that you damn well better show the one with Aniken as a ghost and not the one with the original old Darth who portrayed it.

But even so, its his property. He has control. He can tinker with it as he will. The same with Albee. If he feels, after all these years, that something was missing, I think he has the right to add it. Not so sure he has the right to demand anyone to only perform the new version though.

And my opinion of Nabokov, well, publish it already. I think anyone who is a fan of his work deserves to see how his might worked when creating a story. Many fans like that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

*frown* on the new SW DVDs you have both movies available, so you can decide for yourself which you want to watch. You aren't forced to buy only the tinkered version. Albee, on the other hand, is forcing the theatrical world to *wince oh I hate saying this* accept a new, different version of what is considered a modern classic in the theatre while trying to obliterate the original version. That still seems a lot more extreme to me.

The new new NEW SW dvd? Because we have the last released trilogy of the original ones and it had Aniken. There is no "selection."

So for me to get the "selection" I have to pay another $50 or so to get a trilogy I've already owned in VHS and DVD once already.

But that's beside the point. I still think its the author's creation, he has a right to change it as he wants. I'm not necessarily sure I agree (and I said as much) that he has any right to demand people perform only the new 2 act play versus the original one act.

Moreover, I think the larger issue here is coming back to a work YEARS after you've published it and then tinkering with it. Pen a sequel, if you must, but this sort of thing just doesn't fly. I doubt he's got any legal legs to stand on either, because of issues of publishing and copyrights and that sort of thing. The playwright only has limited control over productions anyway - beyond being paid a royalty for usage they can't really control the way a director interprets the work.

As an example, i remember a local director once casting a David Mamet play - Mamet being one of the more "macho" writers out there - with a predominantly female cast, precisely to highlight gender issues.

With Nabokov, I'm inclined to agree that final wishes should be adhered to.

(As for Lucas - if there was a law induced to PROHIBIT excessive tinkering, I think I'd be all for it. "Han didn't shoot first." Yeah, and my Bantha doesn't smell. )

This is an interesting question. I wonder about things like this all the time---especially when I see things like Frank Herbert's old drafts and notes and deleted bits being turned into a volume. And it made the bestsellers list! I can't IMAGINE ever wanting what fans I might get to see the crap I thought was too bad to put in the book.

Cathy C said:

This is an interesting question. I wonder about things like this all the time---especially when I see things like Frank Herbert's old drafts and notes and deleted bits being turned into a volume. And it made the bestsellers list! I can't IMAGINE ever wanting what fans I might get to see the crap I thought was too bad to put in the book.

Click to expand...

But as a fan we love to see all that thrown out stuff, all the cut scenes, all the first drafts and notes that a writer used to create their stories.

Shadow_Ferret said:

The new new NEW SW dvd? Because we have the last released trilogy of the original ones and it had Aniken. There is no "selection."

So for me to get the "selection" I have to pay another $50 or so to get a trilogy I've already owned in VHS and DVD once already.

But that's beside the point. I still think its the author's creation, he has a right to change it as he wants. I'm not necessarily sure I agree (and I said as much) that he has any right to demand people perform only the new 2 act play versus the original one act.

Click to expand...

on my DVD, which is in the DVD player right now because I want to make sure I'm right, Anakin's ghost is the old fat guy. The Zoo Story has been in the public domain for fifty years, it has been produced thousands of times professionally. Theatre is different IMHO because every time a play is performed it becomes shared intellectual property. The characters become partially the IP of the actors, the director, the theater (who paid for the temporary privelege). In a strange way, it always becomes the property of the audience who each take away a different interpretation of the events. A stage performance is completely unlike a filmed performance because it's never interpreted the same way twice.

I think we're dealing with two completely different issues.

mscelina said:

The Zoo Story has been in the public domain for fifty years

Click to expand...

The Zoo Story has never been in the public domain--it's the intellectual property of Edward Albee. People have licensed it from him for production and publication, but it's his play.

I think this is an odd decision, but it's legally his to make.

No, I don't think they should publish the Nabokov notes. He asked them to be destroyed. I'm not sure what I think about destroying them, but if he didn't want them to be published, then his family really needs to respect his wishes.

Personally, I have journals with story notes and novel notes, but they have a lot of personal stuff in there, too. I wouldn't want them published after I died, unless I happened to become the next Oscar Wilde or Jane Austen. Then, well, my adoring fans can learn all the juicy bits. What do I care, I'm dead.

IceCreamEmpress said:

The Zoo Story has never been in the public domain--it's the intellectual property of Edward Albee. People have licensed it from him for production and publication, but it's his play.

I think this is an odd decision, but it's legally his to make.

Click to expand...

well, poot. I didn't mean THAT public domain.

but I still don't think it's right.

Birol said:

What about something like what Tillie Olsen did with Yonnondio? She had started it in the 1930's, rediscovered the manuscript in the 1970's, realized that the story she would tell at that point in her life would not be the same story that she would have told when she started it, and published it as was, without finishing it. The incomplete novella is now studied in literature classes.

Click to expand...

To me, that's a very interesting point. As artists, we're constantly improving. As humans, we're constantly changing. Do we have the right to continue to change our body of work so that at the end, it is the most polished as if we wrote everything when we're 85 years old, wise and masterful? Or should our work be part of who we were, are, and will be? That it is some kind of time capsule, so we could look back and cringe if we want, but they are part of our history, a testament of our growth? That the work we do in our 20s is going to be different than that in our 40s, or 50s, or 60s, or 70s? And we should just accept and celebrate them as they are?

If Van Gogh had repainted his earlier works, his museum would be kind of dull... don't you think? And do you think Bill Gates is going to eradicate every MS-DOS or Windows 3.0 machines in the world so that he's not embarrassed by the 80s and 90s?

On the other hand, does it only apply to published/produced work? What about unpublished work? Are we allowed to change them? Are we allowed to rework something we started as when we were, say, 15 years old, and make it something else? I admit I have taken an unpublished work I wrote some 10 years ago and tried to make it work using my current skills, understanding, knowledge, and sensibility, and the result is kind of a half-cooked goose. It seems, oftentimes, the best approach might either be to abandon it altogether, or completely rewrite it from scratch (if the basic story and characters are sound).

maestrowork said:

And do you think Bill Gates is going to eradicate every MS-DOS or Windows 3.0 machines in the world so that he's not embarrassed by the 80s and 90s?

Click to expand...

Actually if he were to do that with Windows Me, people would actually be grateful

The story belongs to the author.

The reader/consumer/public then has the right to buy the new story or indulge the author's new vision - or not.

DamaNegra said:

Actually if he were to do that with Windows Me, people would actually be grateful

Click to expand...

I don't think I know anyone who actually had and used Windows ME.

maestrowork said:

I don't think I know anyone who actually had and used Windows ME.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did on my first laptop and it worked better than the first version of XP I had, which crashed and burned my new desktop 4 times in the first 6 months, costing me 20 years worth of manuscripts and notes in the process. It was a sad day in my life when that old laptop died and I was forced to move fully over to XP from ME.

brokenfingers said:

The story belongs to the author.

Click to expand...

No, actually, the story belongs to the author only up until that moment it's published. Then it belongs to the readers as well.

The RIGHTS may belong solely to one person, but the STORY is another matter. As a writer, I view my end products as a shared experience. Why else would I be attempting to publish them?

(And if you say "for the money" I'm going to point and laugh until coffee spurts out my nose and I fall off my chair. )

I just discussed some aspects of this with my father, who is a composer, and his lawyer. He is in his 90s and his copyright will outlive him and most likely me and will devolve to my children. His lawyer's advice was to appoint me as his literary executor (I'm his only heir) with the power to appoint a subsequent executor (probably one of my kids) in the future. We were told that as literary executor, things could be set up so that I would control performance and publication of his music and notes and receive all royalties to be distributed as he has directed in his will. My understanding is that after he is dead, I should consider any of his wishes to have material destroyed or any performances controlled in a specific way, but that legally I do not have to abide by them, because at his death control passes to me. I would however, have to abide by his will in the distribution of money generated by his music. We haven't moved forward on doing anything legal about this mainly because the income from his music is small and since I am the only heir, it didn't seem like a pressing issue.

A few years back they changed the copyright laws. Newer works are copyrighted for a longer period of time. I used to know, but I am sure you can find them under the copyright laws.

One interesting note.. When I went to got see Wicked.. the play. There was no mention of Oz. After seeing the play, my daughter and I had a discussion about this. I believe it is because of Baums copyright. People can use your work, but they need your permission or the estates permission.

I had some writtings of mine, used without my permission. I did not have a formal copyright on it. However I went to an Intellectual Property Lawyer and he informed me, that I did not need that and he succeeded in getting my work on the site it was posted on.