sithelephant t1_ja0bf6e wrote
Dahl had the option, when writing his will, or signing the initial contracts, to put in various conditions as to what could be done with his work.
He chose not to. Amongst other things, this would have reduced those works value.
The recent controversy might be better written as '$30B company gets massive free advertising for their product on which they have a monopoly for 30 years'.
It's nothing to do with the author any more. The only people that benefit meaningfully after the death of the author are the lawyers and the corporate system.
Simpletimes322 t1_ja0oocq wrote
What?
Your argument is baffling...
​
So i write a book, and just because I dont specifically state that my published work cant be modified... its open season on modifications?
Might be legal... but how can you in good conscience publish Dahl as the author of the novel after editing, after the dude died....
sithelephant t1_ja11gco wrote
Literally all publishing contracts specify who has editorial control and how much control.
Simpletimes322 t1_ja1aptl wrote
Ya some lawyer fakery... The percent of people in favor of this kinda censorship is very low
jamar030303 t1_ja1xszc wrote
The flip side is, "modification" covers literally any kind of change, so if an author were to completely prohibit any changes we wouldn't be able to have parody works like "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", for instance.
Simpletimes322 t1_ja3hh6t wrote
This is just not true, the parody would just need to be published under a different name...
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments