“If you consider the spirit of Gandhian thought, one should not ask for such extension. And we have considered this issue and we are not going to ask for such extension,” said Jitendra Desai, Managing Trustee, Navajivan Trust, Ahmedabad.
“Gandhiji never supported the idea of copyright. But due to some instances, where his thoughts were misinterpreted, he was forced to give into the insistence of his well wishers urging him to get his works copyrighted. So he decided to entrust the copyright of his works with Navajivan Trust, which was started by him.” recalled Amrut Modi, managing trustee of the Sabarmati Ashram Preservation and Memorial Trust.
According to Mint the Navajivan Trust has sold over 300 volumes of compilations of his articles, letters and speeches, apart from translations of his autobiography. Unfazed by the expiration of copyright, managing trustee Jitendra Desai reasons: “Even in profiteering, they would propagate Gandhian thought.” However, some Gandhians have expressed their concerns over the removal of the protection, stating that it would lead to the literature being misinterpreted and spread. This concern arises out of the worry that ‘text-torturing’ will take place, i.e., his text and message will get distorted when reproduced by independent sources. Some Gandhians are also worried that the end of the copyright period will lead to prices of the works shooting up.
The Navajivan Trust however, say that they will continue to publish his works at affordable prices so his words and thoughts would continue to be propagated despite the expiration of the copyright.
Are these worries misplaced? Or should authors such as Gandhi (‘famous authors’?) be entitled to longer protection? While both sides have their merits, only time will tell for sure. Incidentally, last week the IP Think Tank Blog had a discussion on whether famous authors should get longer or better moral rights. In the debate, the rights which authors received for their work were bifurcated into commercial rights and moral rights. In light of the issue of when the moral rights of the author actually ceases, one point of view was that it ceases on the death of the author. However, does this apply even when the works are those of ‘famous authors’? And how does one decide who is a ‘famous author’ and who isn’t? However, if one were to go by popular opinion, most people feel that famous personalities should be protected from destruction of their works, as their work is often of considerable cultural/social importance. Nonetheless, how long would one continue to seek extensions on the copyrights of these works?
We don’t have to look too far to find a similar example of great works of an Indian intellectual coming out of copyright protection and into the public domain. The end of Rabindranath Tagore’s copyright period saw a mad publication rush including of course, some low grade publications. According to the Vishwa-Bharathi University, which held the copyrights, one of the main reasons for seeking an extension was that otherwise there was no control over what the public reads and the quality of the work being produced. However, according to Badal Basu, from one of Kolkata’s largest publishing houses, it also saw the opening of new avenues for many publishers across the country, with many of the publications coming forward with innovative adaptations of Tagore’s works which not only added to revenue, but also created a wider clientele.
The primary concern in such matters is generally to ensure that these works, which have assumed a great deal of national and international importance, are delivered and made available to the public without any distortion in their message. In the case of Tagore’s works, it was entitled to an initial period of 50 years (pre-amendment) which expired in 1991. At that time however, the Center had given in to pressure and made an amendment to the Act, which enabled the Vishwa-Bharathi University to hold the rights for a further period of 10 years. However, when they applied for a further extension in 2001, the Center said that it had to keep readers’ interest in mind and decided not to extend it stating that the advantages of putting Tagore’s works in the public domain far outweighed those of keeping them under an institute’s wings. When faced with the argument of the ‘purity’ of the works being lost, officials pointed out the example of William Shakespeare’s works which have not been sullied by being the public domain for so long. Stressing on the readers’ benefit from the non-renewal, an official pointed out, “There is a simple market mechanism that works. If OUP can bring out better editions of Tagore’s works, why should the reader be deprived?”
Looking at some of the Lok Sabha debates (continued here and here) which took place when the first extension was under question, many of the examples which were brought up by those in favour of the extension were those of publishers ‘exploiting’ the authors’ works to make profits for themselves after the death of the author. And then they go on to say that ‘therefore there should be longer periods of copyright protection’. I may be wrong, but isn’t this contradictory? If the aim is to prevent such exploitation, wouldn’t it make sense to have, in fact, an unchanged or even a shorter period of copyright protection after the death of the author? Once the work is in the public domain, there is no question of monopoly rights and therefore the chances, or at the least the degree of exploitation are lessened.
There is however something of a middle path which is often overlooked and which may keep both sides happy in this debate – especially with regard to works such as Gandhi’s and Tagore’s. (The middle path is something that we’ve advocated on this blog earlier as well – ‘If you make the string too tight, it will break. If you make the string too loose, it will not play’.) Further copyright protection under a creative commons license. Off the top of my head, I’d say an “Attribution Share-alike” license would be sufficient for this kind of a situation. Perhaps a shorter period of copyright protection, say 30 years after death of author, followed by a further period of copyleft protection? Though I’m not sure about the logistics of its practical implementation, I think this is an option which shouldn’t be ignored.
@Swaraj Paul Barooah
“The end of Rabindranath Tagore’s copyright period saw a mad publication rush including of course, some low grade publications.”
Eh? Could you please give some instances of “low grade publications”? Because I have a very strong suspicion that you “low grade” would equal my “affordable for the masses”.
I can’t for the life of me understand what “misinterpretation” has to do with copyright in the context of prose literature. In terms of music, it is easier to understand (think “Won’t Get Fooled Again” and Fahrenheit 9/11). How would something being in the public domain make it easier to misinterpret? And what is the point of the middle path that you’re advocating? How will a CC licence help keep Visva-Bharati happy?
Confusedly yours,
Anon. Cow.
When I was taught Copyright.. which was not decades/centuries ago… i thought (and still think) that CR subsisted the moment the work came into existence… by that logic.. CR wd lapse only when the work ceases to exist..
also IMHO.. it is only the CR Regn that lapses after 60 yrs of the life of the author.. and not the CR itself… so renewing it.. is completely the prerogative of the CR holder..(which perhaps he regd in the first place to more forcefully assert his right in an instance of piracy/infringement)..
on the qn of royalty.. i think contracts can sufficiently enable to decipher and determine the same…
Hey AC and Divs, thanks for your comments.
@ AC
I apologise for not being coherent enough in my post. If I’ve understood you right, both your questions stem from what seems to be the overlooking of contextomy, i.e., quoting out of context, false attribution and/or unauthorised alterations to copyrighted literature. Any or all of these can lead to misinterpretation or ‘low grade’ publications.
The point of the CC license in this regard, is that it allows for a duration of protection of the work, as well as protection from a monopoly over the publication of the work in question for that duration.
@ Divs
Copyrights do subsist when the work comes into creation, but the logic of that is that it needs to be protected from the time it comes into being, or the whole point of copyright protection can be defeated. The law well lays down that the copyright ceases to exist 60 calendar years after the death of the author, or in cases of posthumous or pseudonymous publications, 60 calendar years from the date of publication. After this period, the works go into the public domain.
@Swaraj Paul Barooah
a) Quoting out of context doesn’t really require the copyright to expire in most cases, unless the quoting is excessive.
b) False attribution will be covered by moral rights and by defamation. Both of which will persist beyond the term of copyright (in India, though in some systems moral rights expire alongside copyright protection).
c) “Unauthorised” alterations to [expired] copyrighted literature is a good thing. Where would we be without annotated copies of Finnegans Wake or without reinterpretations of the the various kritis created by Muthuswami Dikshitar?
And I still see a fundamental discord in your argument. You want both a “protection from a monopoly over the publication of the work” as well as “protection of the work”. What kind of protection are you talking about?
Lastly, “misinterpretation” is a good thing. The fact that Mahatma Gandhi can be read as Machiavellian (by some) is not a bad thing. Misinterpretation is what keeps the domain of the political, the cultural and the social well and alive. Our world would be far more boring if misinterpretation was banned by law. How would political or legal debates happen if not by twisting words? How could parodies be made? How could we possibly give the sole right of interpretation to the [solitary genius also called the] author leaving out critics, fellow authors, and the public? If the author had the sole right to determine interpretations of his or her work, then Gramsci couldn’t have written his scathing criticism of Rabindranath Tagore’s poetry because it could be argued that it was based on a misinterpretation. Would that make the world a better place?
– A.C.
@ Swaraj…
so are u suggesting that a mid-path be towed.. whereby copyright ceases to exist but misinterpretn/misuse/abuse not take place?
in that case one will have to let moral and the whole gamut of rights to be intact and impose civil obedience more than nething else… how do u see that happening?
An article in yesterday’s Indian Express: http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/print.aspx?artid=|38VBDNBQMU=
“Ever since Bharathi’s work was brought to the public domain in 1949, several books have been published under various titles. They are replete with printing mistakes and interpretive errors to false attribution of the works of other poets to Bharathi. The book, Bharathi Paadalgal-Aaivu Padhippu, published by Tamil University, Thanjavur, in the 1970s, has 48 works wrongly attributed to the national poet, claims Vijaya Bharathi.”
Mira T. Sundara Rajan’s article on it a long while back:
http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/22/stories/2004122200621000.htm
Abstract of legal article on it:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=427386
Another example in the opposite direction is that of crazy German right-wingers who can’t wait for the copyright on Mein Kampf to expire so that they can accurately preach der Führer’s message in his own words.
Sorry for the delay in replying, had gone out of town for a week.
@ AC
Quoting out of context, as you’ve pointed out in your last reply, is much more commonly and easily done after the copyright expires. And yes, false attribution will be covered by defamation as well, but I was under the impression that moral rights expire along with the copyrights in India as well. I shall check up on this and get back if this is not the case.
However, regarding the rest, I’m talking only about works of ‘famous authors’ – literature works of national importance. Taking the teachings of Gandhi specifically, who is to most – the father of the nation, if these were diluted or changed, they could be used to justify/preach anything in his name – and I don’t need to mention the kind of effect that could have on a country such as ours.
It’s for the same reason I’m advocating that there should be a protection from a monopoly (though in practice, the Navajivan trust is not doing any harm – its more a matter of principle)
as well as
that the works themselves should be protected.
Strictly speaking, protection of the works themselves should be sufficient, but in cases where the works are held by someone other than the author, however small the chances are, there is always a chance that right holders could do the damage themselves. Though this comes across as a very cynical view of things, I don’t see the harm in taking the extra precaution.
@ Divs
I am suggesting that a mid-path be towed.. whereby copyrights do not cease completely, but are loosely applied (in the form of copyleft licenses) so the works can be shared and protected at the same time.