>
> In response to Hal's remark that the use of the letters is for a
> "scholarly work, generating little or no profit," that is a distinction
> without a difference, from a legal perspective. If someone knows about the
> use of their letters, and chooses not to object or pursue a legal remedy,
> then the legal doctrine of laches kicks in, i.e., the law won't aid someone
> who sits on their rights, assuming they "knew or should have known" their
> rights were being violated, if they don't object in a reasonable time
> frame, for a civil case like this, my guess would be about two years, but
> don't quote me on that.
> The example that I'm most familiar with is the situation regarding the
> letters of Willa Cather, who died in 1947. The largest group of her
> letters still available is located at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
> her alma mater, and is available for review by scholars. You can describe
> the contents generally, or even, to a certain extent, paraphrase parts of
> her letters, but quoting them is strictly verboten, and would likely elicit
> a response from the estate lawyers, or their successors, assigns, etc. (I'm
> not, I assure you, the voice of experience in this regard). It's always
> the best strategy to make, at the very least, a "good faith" effort to
> locate the authors of the letters, or representatives of their estate,
> prior to quoting from them, and to request written permission for
> quotations.
Martin Zehr
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Hal Bush <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues; I've read the installments from both Kevin & Joe, and
> also have now read the material in the book, which just arrived here the
> other day.
>
> First, I hope the issues they bring up will not stop everyone on the LIST
> from reading the book: this wonderful volume, MT Under Fire, is really
> just terrific; What a resource!! We are all indebted to Joe for this
> accomplishment!
>
> As for the brouhaha at the Forum, beginning with Kevin's review: those are
> really interesting questions being asked. As for fair use, I think given
> the fact it is a scholarly work generating little or no profit, it is
> "legal." Now, whether it is "moral" or "ethical," I cannot say; but I
> think the material was published in the interest of full disclosure of
> "family business," so to speak. Personally, I've been around the block in
> the Twain world, with at least 4 week-long visits to Berkeley and 2 long
> stays at Quarry Farm. And yet I knew nothing about the heart of the
> charges that Joe's book, and then Kevin, are addressing. I'm not sure how
> comfortable I would have felt about airing those charges by and about
> scholars still with us--scholars for whom I have the utmost respect and, I
> hope, some friendship. I can also say that the folks at the MT Project &
> Papers, do heroic work, and we are all indebted to them and to Alan. It
> certainly makes me wonder if these issues came up during the editorial
> project?? In short: some surprising stuff... but at about pp. 143-45,
> only 3 pages, a very minor component to an otherwise awesome achievement.
>
> So far, the silence on Joe's response, and regarding Kevin's remarks to
> Joe, is deafening. I think we can all understand why: most of us know each
> other, and we'll be sitting at dinner together in just a few short months
> in Elmira. Still, some readers on here know me, and my willingness to be
> blunt -- & frankly, I've felt like I (or someone) probably should say
> something, for better or worse.
>
> And here it is: I have only the highest respect for everyone involved,
> too. Mainly: MT Under Fire is just a hugely valuable work. And I'm
> grateful to Joe for writing it; and for Kevin for bringing up those
> difficult issues. But internal squabbles aside, I hope everyone will read
> the book, and order one for your libraries.
>
> --hb
>
>
>
> --
> Prof. Harold K. Bush
> Professor of English
> 3800 Lindell
> Saint Louis University
> St. Louis, MO 63108
> 314-977-3616 (w); 314-771-6795 (h)
> <www.slu.edu/x23809.xml>
>
|
