Roald Dahl Children's Books Being Rewritten

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

Under the old US copyright system, Dahl’s children books would have already started coming into the public domain, at which point the original versions would be free and accessible. It’s an advantage of shorter copyright that hadn’t struck me before, that books would run out their copyright while sensibilities were relatively stable, before wholesale calls for rewriting. And in any case, people wouldn’t be limited by the secondary market if they wanted to access the original text.

But, when the copyright does expire it will be the original versions that will be public domain.

[Pjama]

It would be fascinating, however, to buy editions with the original and post-sensitivity on left and right pages, like a parallel text. It doesn’t look like there will be much left of the originals! The whole point of Roald Dahl books when they first came out was that they were meant to be anarchic, unsavory, the kind of books your parents wouldn’t approve of!

[Pjama]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But, when the copyright does expire it will be the original versions that will be public domain.

That is good to know, and gives me some feeling of hope in all this mess.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

Yeah, yeah, we know. Everyone knows. I think people keep citing that for the perceived shock value and not because it’s informative. Time to let it go.

Well, that was a nice way to completely dismiss my post and impugn my reasoning. Thanks for that.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Whoever owns the copyright should be able to do whatever they want with it. If they want to publish a revised version that they feel better reflects their current beliefs, then no one should should try to get in the way of their freedom of expression.

I don't like it, but I agree with you.

I really disliked Lucas' tinkering with the Star Wars movies and do dislike the bowdlerizing of the Dahl books. But then I would feel uncomfortable with any law that would prevent them from doing what they wished (though I would be happy for shorter copyright terms, like we used to have).

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't like it, but I agree with you.

I really disliked Lucas' tinkering with the Star Wars movies and do dislike the bowdlerizing of the Dahl books. But then I would feel uncomfortable with any law that would prevent them from doing what they wished (though I would be happy for shorter copyright terms, like we used to have).

Yeah. 15 years with the requirement to re-apply if you want it extended for another 15. The re-application requirement would prevent books being locked in copyright through inertia.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But, when the copyright does expire it will be the original versions that will be public domain.

That’s exactly what I said. My point was that revamps wouldn’t be as significant, since the original would be accessible if not immediately, in the near term.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

If they want to publish a revised version that they feel better reflects their current beliefs, then no one should should try to get in the way of their freedom of expression.

I'm not wholly sure I understand where you are coming from.

Suppose someone, who didn't pay approximately $2 billion to Dahl's survivors, wants to create a new and improved version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Should anyone get in the way of their free expression?

Note issybird's suggestion that the copyrights should, ideally, have already expired. If copyright was, say, Life + 30, some publishers could now come out with new and improved products, while others could brag about selling the original Dahl texts. So long as all were honestly labeled, I'm fine with that legally. I would argue in favor of buying originals, and Netflix executives could say I was wrong. Now, that's free expression.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Netflix lands golden ticket by buying Roald Dahl estate (2021)

Well that explains it. Netflix is insane.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

So it sounds like the estate is the one making the changes.

Apparently the "estate" is now Netflix.

[rcentros]

I don't know the character Mike Teavee or from what book this excerpt comes from, but I'm guessing the following excerpt that was removed is designed to show that this character was a bit unhinged (or at least eccentric). (Taken from Pjama's thumbnail.)

Mike Teavee himself had no less than eighteen toy pistols of various sizes hanging from belts around his body, and every now and again he would leap up into the air and fire off half a dozen rounds from one or another of these weapons.

If you remove this passage, you've removed part of the descriptive "flavor" of the character. Over TOY pistols (I assume that's the reason)?

Just stupid.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm not wholly sure I understand where you are coming from.

Suppose someone, who didn't pay approximately $2 billion to Dahl's survivors, wants to create a new and improved version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Should anyone get in the way of their free expression?

Note issybird's suggestion that the copyrights should, ideally, have already expired. If copyright was, say, Life + 30, some publishers could now come out with new and improved products, while others could brag about selling the original Dahl texts. So long as all were honestly labeled, I'm fine with that legally. I would argue in favor of buying originals, and Netflix executives could say I was wrong. Now, that's free expression.

So whoever owns the copyright can do what they want with it, owners of the originals can keep them and, when it's in the commons, anyone can have at it. Meanwhile, bystanders can wag their fingers at whomever they please.-)

Publishers sanitizing things for their markets shouldn't be surprising. I might smirk at their prudery, but they're the ones pocketing the money.

I don't think we disagree, do we?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

So whoever owns the copyright can do what they want with it, owners of the originals can keep them and, when it's in the commons, anyone can have at it. Meanwhile, bystanders can wag their fingers at whomever they please.-)

So long as they say, "This is not the writer's original version. We've decided we know better how to write than he did."

Because committees are always so much better at writing then creative writers.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” George Orwell, 1984

[Sarmat89]

That is weird, because the author's rights are not inheritable, and only the author himself has the rights to make modifications in their works.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

That is weird, because the author's rights are not inheritable, and only the author himself has the rights to make modifications in their works.

Copyright IS transferable. So assuming the Dahl estate and Netflix are not blindly committing suicide by doing something they have no legal right to do, I'm guessing that the author completed the proper written requirements to transfer his rights to his estate before his death. Hence the estate's legal right to sell the rights to Netflix. Hence Netflix's legal right to make (or approve/print) these changes.

I'm perfectly capable of recognizing their legal right to do what they're doing while simultaneously thinking it's quite stupid to do it. I don't, however, think it's anything remotely new, tragic, or all that troublesome (on a grand scale). Just stupid (from a personal viewpoint). We've all read words in works that differed from what the original author wrote without knowing it.