Subject
Re: Copyrights and Russian Citizens (fwd)
Date
Body
EDITOR'S NOTE: Novelist David Slavitt is replying to Andrei Ustinov's
comments about copyright on Nabokov-related material.
---------------------
From: David R. Slavitt <slavitt@MSCF.MED.UPENN.EDU>
Ustinov's remarks blow are wrong and misinformed. If I send a letter, the
contents of the letter remain my property. The physical letter (paper,
ink, etc.) becomes the property of the receipient. The recipient cannot
license reproduction. That remains my prerogative, or that of my estate.
This principal was established in the UK during the wrangling over the
Byron papers, which are still controlled by John Murray's successors.
This kind of misinformation ought not be scattered around the scholarly
community. Lawyers and curators of manuscript collections can advise on
these complicated questions, but the rest of us ought not go around
imagining what the law is likely to be.
>-----------------------
From ANdrei Ustinov:
>
>As a respected bibliographer of Nabokov's ouevre you know that K-Q-K was
>published in Berlin, and if there were any rights back in 1928, they
>belonged to "Slovo" publishing house, which long ceased its existence.
>Another matter is that it is basically impossible to find someone to get a
>permission to use and reprint Nabokov's works or even publish Nabokov's
>letters which were sent to other people and actually after they were sent
>lost their legal status of being a copyright property. As far as I know
>scholars do their best to reach Dmitrii Nabokov, who I believe has a sole
>right to grant or refuse permission for publications (correct me if I am
>wrong), but they do not always succeed.
>
>Andrey Ustinov
**********************************
David R. Slavitt
TEL:(215) 382-3994
comments about copyright on Nabokov-related material.
---------------------
From: David R. Slavitt <slavitt@MSCF.MED.UPENN.EDU>
Ustinov's remarks blow are wrong and misinformed. If I send a letter, the
contents of the letter remain my property. The physical letter (paper,
ink, etc.) becomes the property of the receipient. The recipient cannot
license reproduction. That remains my prerogative, or that of my estate.
This principal was established in the UK during the wrangling over the
Byron papers, which are still controlled by John Murray's successors.
This kind of misinformation ought not be scattered around the scholarly
community. Lawyers and curators of manuscript collections can advise on
these complicated questions, but the rest of us ought not go around
imagining what the law is likely to be.
>-----------------------
From ANdrei Ustinov:
>
>As a respected bibliographer of Nabokov's ouevre you know that K-Q-K was
>published in Berlin, and if there were any rights back in 1928, they
>belonged to "Slovo" publishing house, which long ceased its existence.
>Another matter is that it is basically impossible to find someone to get a
>permission to use and reprint Nabokov's works or even publish Nabokov's
>letters which were sent to other people and actually after they were sent
>lost their legal status of being a copyright property. As far as I know
>scholars do their best to reach Dmitrii Nabokov, who I believe has a sole
>right to grant or refuse permission for publications (correct me if I am
>wrong), but they do not always succeed.
>
>Andrey Ustinov
**********************************
David R. Slavitt
TEL:(215) 382-3994