Goebbels Biography and Copyright Laws.
In April 2015, Joseph Goebbels, the heirs of the notorious propaganda minister sued the Random House publication for breaches of copyright. The biography of Joseph Goebbels was written by Peter Longerich and published by the Random House in 2010 (Alberge, 2015). The publication house and the writer used extracts from Joseph’s diary without paying for Goebbels family royalties in return for using the writings. We live in an era where it is very easy to access information and disseminating it. Despite that technology and the information age has many benefits, it still has mane drawbacks. One of these drawbacks is using intellectual properties (writings and diaries…) without the permission of the original owner. The lawsuit that was declared against the Random House is a representation of such infringement and is rather aware regarding the range of copyright infringement and the laws.
As a definition, copyright is legal right to control all use of an original work, such as a book, play, movie, or piece of music, for a particular period of time (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). One factor that accelerated the intellectual property theft is the information age we are living. Therefore, the increase in the legislative measures and copyright laws that are implemented to save the individuals against such violations is normal. If a publication firms or individuals are responsible for an infringement then they should be subjected to a lawsuit. However, the copyright laws are debatable and presents ad dilemma. The positive side is that it benefits the owners financially and protects their creations. On the other hand, the negative side is that it limits the access of crucial information by the public. Balkin (2004) states that the development of technology helped in increasing the cultural participation and communication that was not present previously. Simultaneously, it also offers way to control and limit such interactions and participations. This restriction to cultural participation is considered a negative copyright law feature and is portrayed in the Goebbels case where the author Longerich said that “if you accept that a private person controls the rights of Goebbels diaries, then you should give this person the right to control research.” In other words, it means preventing the knowledge that should be made public from the public (Alberge, 2015). This obstacle that faces the copyright laws has been addressed by the doctrine of “fair use.”
Fair use is when people have the right to use copyrighted work without any permission or payments only when quoted (Aufderheide, Jaszi, Bieze, and Boyles, 2012). People are allowed to use copyrighted work according to the criteria. The criteria include four factors: the purpose and character of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the parts taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market (Stim, 2017). Thus, the rule of law adjudged the Random House publication at fault and did not consider the content of the biography as a fair use.
In addition, Random House and Longerich opposed the Goebbels heir’s claims on the basis that ‘no money should go to the estate of a war criminal’ (Alberge, 2015). This moral argument shows discrimination against a war criminal’s family. Regardless of Goebbels’ political status and war crime history, his descendants are nonetheless entitled to his literary estate. According to the New York Times, if the publishing house’s argument was based on the fact that the diaries belong to the public domain by virtue of their historical character, it would have had a better case in the court. At the same time, diaries are considered private and personal literary works so the Goebbels family has the right to protect their personal information from becoming exposed to the public. The diaries are subject to copyright provisions, akin any other literary or creative work because they are original in their content irrespective of Goebbels’ criminal status. In the end, these legislative mechanisms have been created to protect individuals from encroachments and where the line of violations is blurred. Pertaining to the Goebbels’ case, the rule of law deemed the family as rightful in their claims.
In conclusion, copyright is global. Copyright laws are found to protect the intellectual properties and original works for individuals from any violations or theft. However, copyright is also a controversial issue since many claim that it prevents the access of public to knowledge. So, the fair use doctrine is implemented to help use parts of works under certain conditions to make it fair for both sides. In the case of the biography of Goebbels, the publishing house and the writer did not operate the fair use and it was considered a breach of copyrights. Copyright is applicable to the diaries as it is applicable to any other form of works. Finally, the heirs of Goebbels are entitled to the protection and financial benefits according to the copyright law.
References:
- Aufderheide, P., Jaszi, P. A., Bieze, K., & Boyles, J. L. (2012). Copyright, Free Speech, and the Public’s Right to Know: How Journalists Think about Fair Use.
- Alberge, D. (2015, April 17). Random House told it should pay to quote Joseph Goebbels in biography. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/18/random-house-told-it-should-pay-to-quote-joseph-goebbels-in-biography
-Balkin, J. M. (2004). Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society. NyuL rev., 79, 1.
-Copyright Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/copyright
-Stim, R. (2017, April 10). Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors. Retrieved from https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
-US Legal, Inc. (n.d.). USLegal. Retrieved from https://copyright.uslegal.com/facts-and-research-historical-events/
