Why Does The War Criminal Get Money Forever?: A Case of Copyright Laws
In 2015, Joseph Goebbels’ estate sued Peter Longerich, a professor of modern German history, over the use of Goebbels’ quotes in his biography. Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Adolf Hitler during the Nazi era in Austria and Germany, wrote diaries during this era which were then utilized by Longerich in a biography about him. The estate won this case, and Random House Germany was legally obliged to pay royalties. Many issues are brought up by this ruling, beyond ones of copyright issues, but rather a moral and ethical debate. The issue of the mere existence of the copyright lawsuit by Goebbels’ estate related to his wartime diaries are primarily discussed due to the nature of Goebbel among other factors.
What this tackles, is the conflict between copyright and the right to information. Copyright is ”exclusive and transferable legal right given to the originator of creative works” (Packard, 2013, p. 176). What this means exclusive rights to the following are assigned for a fixed number of years: “…print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material” (Packard, 2013, p. 176). All creative content is protected, including literature, whether fictional or not (Packard, 2013, p. 176). In this case, Goebbels’ expressed inner thoughts are protected, since copyright “does not protect ideas or facts itself, but the unique ways in which they are expressed” and is in a tangible medium, specifically a book here (Packard, 2013, p. 176). In this case, Longerich did not request permission from Goebbels’ estate before using the quotes for the biography, which is considered a derivative version of a copyrighted work (Packard, 2013, p. 176). The legal flow of this case makes sense, however, the entire ethical and moral issue at hand is ignored when properly looking into why the Goebbels’ estate should not have won the lawsuit.
In accordance with copyright laws, the copyright claims of Goebbels descendants are legitimate, but when asking for profit in order to use quotes, that is where the claims are no longer as valid. The diaries were under copyright until 2015, the expiration of the copyright, which would have then made the diaries public domain. If Longerich had used the quotes after 2015 or even once the copyright expired that same year, there is a chance that their entire case would not have occurred because there was no law to rely on in this scenario. Especially because this case was entirely decided upon on a legal basis versus ethical. When viewed from an ethical perspective, the argument heavily rides against the Goebbels estate. Due to the nature of Goebbel’s occupation in which his roles were of a pivotal nature, he is considered a public figure. The utilization of his private records is not used in order to exploit the man, nor to cause him any harm. Rather, Longerich can argue for fair use, in which his purpose of using the material for parody, critical, commentary, or transformative purposes (Stanford University Library, n.d.).
Publications of war criminals should not be protected by copyright. One reason is that war criminal, in the same way as public figures, is subjected to public interest due to their position in society. When a person has made the direct decision to put themselves into a position where their every action can be scrutinized, and especially as a powerful position within a powerful entity, this does not give them the room to resort back to being a civilian with the rights to rely on Libel laws. To define, Libel laws “prevent damage to reputation” (Solove, 2011, p.20), which is a viable option for celebrities or other persons of interest to use when a case can be made that there is malicious intent behind the act at hand. In Goebbels’ case, his wartime diaries are not only utilized for transformative purposes, but the grand scheme of his position in society makes understanding his part of history necessary. This is not merely a matter of private life, these diary entries are an important part of history. Goebbels’ part in World War II is not insignificant either, as he was the propaganda minister to Adolf Hitler and “one of the architects of the Final Solution” (Alberge, 2015).
Through a moral lense, it is necessary to point out the fact that the royalties are going to the estate of a war criminal. Even after his life ends, a man who has partaken in the commission of heinous acts is to receive funds? On the contrary, because of his acts, there should not be an obligation for the estate to receive compensation on that basis nor for there to be any profit towards that dangerous of a legacy. The right to information for the purpose of research, education and general public interest is necessary when it comes to impactful historical events. How does it work towards the betterment of content created by a dead man whose content is not working for the betterment of society if a biography specifically for educational purposes is being utilized to pay the home of the man it writes about? They are taking their power over the control of information and exploiting the laws that deem this acceptable. The laws in place are not meant to benefit those in power whose roles were to assist in the extermination of human beings, but people who genuinely have an interest in creating or investing in content. It was even suggested that the royalties be donated to charity if received, but even that was rejected as a possibility (Alberge, 2015). This makes the intention of the lawsuit quite clear, and it is anything but for a humanitarian cause.
In conclusion, even though the Goebbels’ copyright case was mostly legitimate on a legal basis, the full scope was not considered, legally (fair use), ethically, or morally. When considering historical pieces and their necessity to the understanding of history, the events that occurred and the basis behind them, Goebbels’ family has done a great disservice by choosing to profit off the publication of Goebbels’ wartime diary quotes in a biography. Random House Germany’s appeal to the supreme court in Germany should consider these perspectives that were brought up during the court hearings.
References:
Alberge, D. (2015, April 17). Random House told it should pay to quote Joseph Goebbels in biography.
Alberge, D. (2015, July 09). Joseph Goebbels’ family win legal battle to be paid royalties for diary extracts.
Packard, Ashley (2013) ‘Invasion of Privacy’ in Digital Media Law, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, p. 176
Solove, D. (2011) ‘Introduction. Information Privacy Law: Origins and Types’, in Solove, D. & Schwartz, P. Information, Privacy, Law, Aspen Casebook, Walters & Kluwer, Frederick, MD, p. 20 -22
Stanford University Library, ‘Copyright & Fair Use’ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/#sthash.JKCItrOd.dpuf
Stanford University Library, ‘Copyright & Fair Use’ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/#sthash.JKCItrOd.dpuf
