Copyright VS. Right of Information
Hjalmar Schacht was Hitler’s former minister of economics. His daughter, Cordula Schacht, decided to sue Random House Germany over the book title “Goebbels” written by administrative of the Holocaust and Nazi era in Germany and professor of modern German history at Royal Holloway, University of London, and Peter Longerich. The Goebbels family decided to sue the author because he used information from Goebbels’s diary which means the biography he wrote about him, so the family thought that this diary belongs to them since it’s their father’s diary which means they have the right whether to let people use it or not. In other words they thought that they have the copyrights of the diary that belongs to their father. Does the family have the right to claim copyrights? Copyright is the law that protects what you create and puts it under your ownership (Jonathan Bailey, 2017). Copyright’s primary goal is not to reward the creator’s labor but it’s to “protect investment in new ideas” (Packard, 2013, p.176). So, copyright is a way you can protect your work and have a legal right on whether allowing people to use it or not . On the other hand we have Goebbels’s case who holds a very important position in the government, which means that he have information that concern the country. Hiding this information might be considered a crime, but the only issue is that they are placed in his diary.
The diary might contain historical significance,which means information that might benefit the public and the country as a whole. This makes conflicts between the copyrights law and right of information and the idea of Utilitarianism. Patricia Aufderheide explains, if under reasonable cause information can be used without paying or permission, this happens when these information benefit the public more than the probability of hurting owner (2012, p.3). In Goebbels’s case, taking the issue from this perspective the family members would be affected negatively form the publishing of these information however the public would discover the truth about the true identity of Nazis and how Goebbels had a word in Hitler’s actions. Moreover the family don’t have any copyrights anymore because according to Dege, any information concerning the Nazi’s Central Publishing House belongs to the Bavarian State’s property (Dege, 2015), which means that the Bavarian government’s owns Goebbels’s diaries . Which gives no sense for why the daughter sued Random house because they technically were not the only people who used these information? Also just like all the public they have the access to the libraries. And there is no possible rule that prevents the public from using information from the Libarary.so why sues them? Could this possibly be about something else?
When Schacht sued random house she asked for money because according to her it’s her father’s diary. Rainer Dresen had one condition which is giving the money to charity but she turned down the offer but insisted on getting the money (Alberge, 2015).
Such historical publications need more investigation, because it doesn’t concern one side only but two. Goebbels’s diaries had a lot of information that could change the public’s perspective about a certain party. Schacht claim wasn’t convincing because they were already out in the public so why did she specifically wanted to sue Random house Germany. Moreover she was more concerned about the money rather her father’s work. If she wanted to protect her father’s work she would fight for it and not for the money. And if she was really this concerned she would ask for the copies that we published in the libraries rather than focusing on one article.
Some publications no matter how private they are must be published if it contains information that could affect the public in anyway. In such cases we are protecting someone’s life, but destroying a billion other ones. According to the Utilitarianism approach, decisions should be made based on ‘the greater good’ some publication contains topics and events that could change the history. This is how history is written and known anyway. According to the Utilitarianism approach, decisions should serve the greater good for the public. Goebbels’s diaries could change the perspective of a whole country but make a small scar in the family’s ego, so obviously in this case the greater good is the public. Going back to the copyrights law, I think it’s safe to say that the copy rights should be based on the right of information in such cases.
References
Alberge, D. (2015, April 18). Random House told it should pay to quote Joseph Goebbels in biography. Retrieved from Thegurdian: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/18/random-house-told-it-should-pay-to-quote-joseph-goebbels-in-biography
Baily, J.(2017). What is Copyright? Retrived from:
Dege, S. (2015, April 24). Legal battles over use of Goebbels diaries. Retrieved from DW: http://www.dw.com/en/legal-battles-over-use-of-goebbels-diaries/a-18403830
Packard, Ashley (2013) ‘Invasion of Privacy’ in Digital Media Law, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, p. 183
