Joyce estate backs off
23 March 2007 4:43 pmTHE estate of James Joyce has given up its attempt to enforce its copyright against an author
and researcher. For Carol Shloss, a Stanford University professor of English and Joycean scholar, it was a happy end to a ten year battle against the James Joyce trustees and estate. (see previous post here).
Shloss was prevented from using quotations from James Joyce or Lucia Joyce (his daughter). As a result, Shloss was forced to delete substantial sections of her book Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake, published in 2003.
In June 2006, the Stanford Centre's Fair Use Project, representing Shloss, sued the Joyce estate and Stephen Joyce (grandson of James) on four counts, one of which was copyright misuse. It was believed to be the first case of this kind.
A subsequent 'motion to dismiss' was taken by the Joyce estate early in 2007, which the court denied.
Last Monday a settlement was agreed. Included was the statement that "the Estate and Joyce covenant agree not to sue Shloss for infringement of any copyrights resulting from Shloss's publication, in either electronic or printed form".
Anthony Falzone, director of Stanford's Fair Use Project, said it was "an important victory for Carol Shloss, scholarship and fair use".
He said it was a "remarkable victory given the Estate's past aggression" and hoped that it was "the first in a string of many cases that vindicate the rights of not only scholars and academics, but creators of all manner".
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I’ve been following this farce in the Phoenix, delighted to see this result. I don’t know about the man himself, but the modern Joyce’s seem like a nasty, greedy bunch. In my opinion, obviously.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Adam, in my experience the Joyce relatives I’ve met in Dublin are the opposite of how you label them. And as far as I know, they don’t get one cent from Joyce’s works. So please don’t condemn the Joyces because of the attitude of the sole executor – and owner – of the estate.
But yes, this is a good result – probably even for the Joyce Estate itself.
March 24th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
What about the board of trustees Philip, do they have no say and are there no Joyce’s on it?
April 1st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
[...] Nowhere is this more clear than online. The internet, that hotbed of innovation, has given rise to many modern copyright controversies, not only infringements such as napster (A&M Records v Napster 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); decision; wikipedia here and here) and grokster (MGM Studios, Inc v Grokster Ltd 545 US 913 (2005); decision; wikipedia here and here | recent discussion here), but also less straightforward and still undecided issues such as google books (which I have already discussed here) or Viacom’s suit against YouTube (discussed by Daithí here). Whatever about the merits of the individual cases, it is becoming increasingly clear that the the internet’s culture of innovation is running squarely into the brick wall of expansive copyright protection, extended online by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1988 in the US (text | wikipedia) and the EU’s copyright policy for the Information Society (monitored here by fipr). Developments on the internet are demonstrating by the minute that the balance has tipped too far in favour of the monopoly reward, and too far away from encouraging innovation. In particular, the US fair use doctrine is too narrow, and the fair dealing exception in other common law countries is quite frankly unfair. As the recent litigation by the Joyce Estate demonstrates (background: William Patry; Funferal; Fergus Cassidy. Outcome: Lessig; Concurring Opinions; Fergus Cassidy here and here; Slaw; Stanford CIS, here and here), they barely work offline. Neither can do the work required to maintain an appropriate balance between monopoly and innovation. This is beautifully illustrated in John Naughton’s column in the Observer yesterday: The very model of a modern creative society? I don’t think so (he blogged it on Memex 1.1; commented upon by Daithí on Lex Ferenda). [...]