Julian Assange doesn't want his autobiography published (which is apparently not an autobiography at all but a biography compiled from interviews by a ghostwriter, the morality of which we might also consider while we're at it). His argument is that the ghostwriter has no right to publish this material without his consent. The irony that the person objecting is only noteworthy as the head of Wikileaks which exists to publish material without consent will not have escaped the general public but that aside what is the copyright position?
The Duke of Wellington famously responded to the insistence of a former mistress that she could publish her memoirs detailing their scandalous affair with a curt "Publish and be damned" which was consistent with his other famous riposte on the subject "I do not like what you say Sir but I will defend to the death your right to say it." On the whole I think the Duke had the right idea. If every individual can exist that effectively his or her life is copyright then no newspaper, no writer, no blogger come to that would be able to reproduce that individual's words or actions without being liable to the allegation of breach of copyright even if, as in the Assange case, the material has been provided freely and willingly. This would be on top of the already existing laws of libel and defamation which surely should be sufficient protection. Lord knows where this would leave us with phone-hacking!
Best to stick to the line the writer can say what they like without consent and you have the right equally to defend yourself in print on the same basis then leave it to the court of public opinion. If people like you they won't believe the libel and if they really like you they won't take any notice of it if they do. But as to deceiving the public by selling a book you claim to have written when it has actually been written by somebody else - now that really shouldn't be allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment