Should publications of war criminals be protected by copyright?
The family of Joseph Goebbels- Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda- has sued for royalties from a biography on him by Peter Longerich- a professor of German history at Royal Holloway, University of London- published by Random House Germany and its imprint Sidler in 2010. The biography used the minister’s diaries heavily as source material.
Cordula Schacht is acting for the family in the case against Random House Germany. Cordula’s own father Hjalmar Schacht was Hitler’s minister of economics and president of the Reichsbank. He was acquitted of war crimes at Nuremberg and died in 1970.
The Goebbels family strongly believes that it owns the copyright of their late father’s diary. However, Lawyer for Random House Germany, Rainer Dresen, told the Guardian newspaper: “We are convinced that no money should go to a war criminal.” (Alberge, 2015)
This case raises a lot of questions and debates. Incidentally, it makes us question what copyright truly is and whether or not it should take morality into account when awarding protection or the benefit from said rights.
According to Ashley Packard, “copyright is the exclusive and transferable legal right given to the originator of creative works. It also assigns exclusive right to print, publish, perform, film or record literary, artistic, or musical material for a fixed number of years “(Packard, A. 2013). In addition, the main aim of copyright is to guarantee authors’ exclusive rights to their original expression and that its primary purpose is not to reward labor but to protect investment in new ideas (Packard, A. 2013).
Consequently, the ultimate purpose of copyright is to assure creators’ exclusive rights to their original work (Ashley, 2013, p.179). Once the creative work is produced, it is automatically protected by copyright that is owned by either the creator of the work or by an employer if the work was prepared as part of an employment contract. Finally, it is important to note that copyright is not permanent but it can be renewed. Works that were created after the year 1978 are protected for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years (Ashley, 2013, p. 183–187).
It is pivotal to note that Goebbels’ diaries included significant historical information that ought not to be disregarded. His diaries highlight stories behind the power of Nazi Germany during that time. And thus, this information is made for the public good and ought to be provided to the people in order to learn from the past and avoid future similar scenarios. The purpose behind the usage of Goebbels’ Diaries was fundamentally to educate and pass significant information about the country’s history to the public.
For this reason publications of historical significance, such as in the Goebbels case, should not be compared to any other ordinary publication for various reasons. Mainly, they are not only creative ideas and information but rather valuable historical material that must be provided to the public in order for them to be educated and learn from the past. In a way, this helps reinforce the modern country’s persistent strategy to eradicate bigotry and extremism by underlining the roots of Nazi ideology and the way with which it operated.
Even though Random House used various quotations from Goebbels’ Diaries without taking permission from his family, Random House’s did not have any bad or manipulative intention. Furthermore, it is crucial to note the legality of their action according to the Fair Use policy which is “based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist’s work without asking permission” (Stanford University Library). Although the biography was mainly adapted from Goebbels’ Diaries, their true purpose was fundamentally to highlight and portray details concerning the Nazi Party at the time. Thus, it was made for the benefit of the people.
In a nutshell, publications of major and important historical information should not be treated the same way as other publications, mainly because they involve the public good and interests. From a deontological perspective, it is one’s moral duty to inform the public of what truly happened in the past. Providing people with the truth is the ultimate goal especially that this truth involves the public and can influence their social and political life choices. Utilitarianism would go hand in hand with the deontology approach in this case. As a matter of fact, from a utilitarian perspective, decisions should be made based on “the higher good”. In the case discussed in this essay, -Goebbels’s diaries- Schacht rejects the spread of information and asks for a material benefit. In this situation, the majority “the public” is more important than one single family. If one had to select between the benefit of the family or the benefit of the people, it is not only ethical but also pragmatic to choose the public. Hiding such important information and depriving the public form their basic rights (the truth) is a huge crime. Last but not least,” Works created after1978 are protected for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years” This means that the texts already expired and thus, Longerich and Random House have the right to use extracts from the diaries with no permission needed.
References
Alberge, D. (2015, April 18). Random House told it should pay to quote Joseph Goebbels in biography. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/18/random-house-told-it-should-pay-to-quote-joseph-goebbels-in-biography
Packard, A. (2013). ‘Invasion of Privacy’ in Digital Media Law, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son, Inc.
Stanford University Library, ‘Copyright & Fair Use’ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/#sthash.JKCItrOd.dpuf
