> > 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> >