Churchill's Heirs Seek To Lose The Future By Charging Biographer To Quote His Words

from the who-owns-your-words dept

Tue, Jan 22nd 2013 10:33am — Mike Masnick

"If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future." — Winston Churchill

We've talked in the past about how the heirs of Martin Luther King Jr. and James Joyce have a long and unfortunate history of being ridiculous about letting anyone quote their dead ancestors. Both families have abused copyright law to demand excessive payments, even for researchers and memorials and the like. Now we can add the heirs of Winston Churchill to the bunch. The Freakonomics podcast recently explored this issue with a biographer of Winston Churchill, Barry Singer.

Singer is somewhat obsessed with Churchill, running an entire bookstore devoted to Churchill. As such, he actually says he's had a very good relationship with Churchill's heirs for years. But when he finally sought to write a book on Churchill himself, the family went the usual route and claimed no quotations unless you pay. The approximate rate: 50 cents per word. Quoting other Churchill relatives also costs money and the rates may differ. As Singer explains, he basically had to significantly cut back on what he quoted, and completely excise some Churchill family members from the book. But he did have to pay for the 3,872 words he used that included direct quotations from Churchill -- though the family gave him a slight discount, such that he had to pay £950 -- which works out to about 40 cents per word.

Singer admits that, while some lawyers told him he could fight this, he gave in to keep up his strong relationship with the family. Of course, that only brings to mind Churchill's quote:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last.

Also:

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

It's too bad Singer chose not to stand up more.

To be honest, the podcast is a little weak in that it doesn't go too deep into the legal issues here and how they can impact history, culture and research. Furthermore, it does little to explore the actual law and how far the Churchill estate is overreaching. Oddly, it seems to suggest that this is just "the way" that the UK's copyright laws work (not quite true) and then does a little section on the attempts by the UK government to reform the laws -- even though the UK government decided to reject the idea of including a US-style fair use exception.

Stephen Dubner then talks to Steve Levitt about copyright in general, and claims that his take is "un-economic" because he doesn't seem to care much for stringent enforcement of copyright, and would prefer to share his own works more widely. I don't see how that's un-economic at all. In fact, as Levitt notes, his own status goes up as the work is more widely shared, increasing all sorts of opportunities elsewhere. I actually found this part of the discussion kind of disappointing, as there were a bunch of interesting nuanced directions in which it could have gone, including a much deeper analysis of the economics of copying, but instead, they went with the standard line from people who are just exploring this topic for the first time, which I'll paraphrase as: "well of course copyright is important, and we don't want anyone copying our book, but perhaps it goes too far in some cases."

The parts on Churchill are interesting, and hopefully Dubner (and Levitt?) will follow up in more detail down the road. For example, it would be great for them to bring on Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala, who they've had guest-post for them in the past, considering they've written an entire book on these kinds of things.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: biographer, charging, copyright, freakonomics, heirs, uk, winston churchill

42 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 10:41am

This seems so bizarre from the other side of the pond; how can people force you to pay to quote historical figures?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jessie (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 10:44am

Where's mine
So where's my check for letting you use my comments? I'll discount this one to just $5. Nice doing business with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 10:47am

If this is how descendents of people remembered well try to make money off their dead ancestor, imagine how much worse descendents of people remembered poorly will try to make money.

"Want to talk about or quote Adolf Hitler, that will be $1,000 a word. What we're driving Hitler's name and our own name through the mud by trying to profit off of him? Too late, he did that better then we could ever do it ourselves. We'll always be hated, so we might as well profit off of it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
justok (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 10:49am

He should fight them on the bookshelves...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 10:49am

"[...]recently explored this issue with a biographer of Winston Churchill, Barry Singer.

entire bookstore devoted to Churchill."

As they say on the Internet, I think you accidentally a word...more likely a whole sentence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 10:53am

The political establishment will like this, as their heirs can protect their reputation by preventing quotes from their speeches. However if the do their names will not echo down the corridors of history like Achilles name did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:04am

Re:
They do this pretty easily now.All becuase of the fact that we have:
1.Voted for the same kinds of clowns Worldwide
2.Allowed Copyright Laws to expand and expand and expand
3.All in the scheme of greedy unfair type Capitalism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:05am

What about the g*d d*mned family legacy?
Even more bizarre is how this negatively impacts the family legacy. I was under the impression that his family were the sort that would have been fixated on the idea of making their mark and leaving a lasting legacy. I would have expected a more "Lannister" attitude from them.

Although now that I think about it a "pay per word" approach sounds like the Lannister's too...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:11am

Inaccurate title. I would change "Seek to Lose" with "Risk Losing". I don't think their objective is to lower Churchill's historical importance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:18am

You want to talk nuance? Then please tell us your personal beliefs about whether we should have copyright and if so what its scope should be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:22am

Hey, Mike
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last."

Also:

"You have enemies? Good. That means you�ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."

How much did this cost you? Oh, crap! How much did it cost me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:24am

Wait. Churchill wasn't just a character on Doctor Who?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:25am

i suppose it's because the lazy bastards want money for doing nothing, like most who rely solely on copyright. i bet Winston would have a fit if he knew what his relations were pulling
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:27am

Re: Hey, Mike
That's two strikes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:30am

Re:
Nuance takes time to understand. You can read all of Mike's thoughts on copyrights on this blog. He's written quite extensively. It's all there. We all know you've had the time to do it, since you've been here long enough.

However, we also know you don't want to talk nuance. You want Mike to say something short and non-nuanced in a single post so you can pounce on whatever it is he says with all the nuance of a shotgun used as a fly swatter.

Now buzz off you pesky fly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:35am

This seems like it would have a massive chilling effect on history. Looks like we'll only be able to read about Hitler, since no one wants to admit they are related to him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:35am

Crap.
Now only pirates will be erudite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin H (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:39am

Re:
And in the libraries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:49am

Re:
It is insane. It also isn't what the law says. Quoting is perfectly legal, provided it only a small amount is quoted, or the quoting is "fair." It used to be thought (by the major publishers) that you could quote was about 400(?) words without permission. Then there were a couple of crazy cases that said even a few words (or a headline) could be copyrighted, and suddenly the publishers got a lot less friendly.

And they can get away with it because (a) people pay, (b) people can't afford to go to court, and (c) the Courts are yet to overturn (or clarify) the crazy rulings. The UK Supreme Court is due to look at it soon (a hearing in a couple of weeks), and hopefully they will fix some of the law. Getting the publishers to accept it could take longer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:55am

Re: Re:
Nowhere does Mike every actually explain in detail whether he thinks we should have any copyright rights, and if so, what the scope of those rights should be. Mike wants others to have this nuanced discussion, but Mike is too scared to have it himself. No one runs away faster from a conversation on the merits than Mike. He keeps it all at really high-level stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dennis deems (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:56am

Re:
Figure of speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dennis deems (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:57am

Re:
Oh lord, who dug you up and dusted you off?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dennis deems (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 11:59am

Re:
It would be something up with which he would not put.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 12:05pm

Re:
"If this is how descendents of people remembered well try to make money off their dead ancestor, imagine how much worse descendents of people remembered poorly will try to make money."

When the movie PUBLIC ENEMIES came out, I created some John Dillinger-related merchandise using public domain material from 1940s crime comic books and old movie posters.
The Dillinger estate threatened the Print on Demand companies I do business with, claiming "right of publicity".
(They also threatened all the other people on those PoDs who were doing Dillinger merchandise.)
The PoDs backed down and blocked sales of any Dillinger-related stuff until after the movie had run it's course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron *Head* Moss (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 12:12pm

Doe this mean that we can misquote Churchill and blame it on trying to save a few bucks?

"I may be ugly."
"Success is fatal."
"Give up."

Sorry couldn't afford the full quotes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 22 Jan 2013 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
Holy fuck, I thought we got past all this when Mike actually answered your fucking questions. Glad to know you're beating a dead horse. No wonder you're so obsessed with copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 12:18pm

Re:
Please that should be:-
I may be drunk...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 12:28pm

Re:
Try sticking to the topic of the post. Hijacking the comments for your own obsessive crusade is downright rude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 12:30pm

a
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 12:30pm

Re:
For the record, quoting this costs 50 cent. (Double that if you do it without attribution.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 22 Jan 2013 @ 12:55pm

Interesting note from the interview: the entire advance for the book went to the image and quoting rights, and yet he has no regrets writing it.

Good thing copyright and getting paid are the only things keeping people creating, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jonny, 22 Jan 2013 @ 1:15pm

Wonder if Iron Maiden has lifetime usage rights. Aces High wouldn't be the same without Churchy opening it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron *Head* Moss (profile), 22 Jan 2013 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re:
No, no, I am drunk. No may be about it. 8)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 2:15pm

Re:
Hi AJ. Nice to see you weaseling your way around these funny little things called "relevance" and "honesty".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 2:16pm

Re:
No, he was also the villain in Timecop.

OH, wait, no, wrong genre convention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 8:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
Go on, then. Tell us how Winston Churchill is benefiting from this life + 70 years.

Go ahead.

We'll be waiting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2013 @ 8:13pm

Re: Re: Hey, Mike
Just to be safe, since we're all posting here and we're probably "aiding and abetting", we all get two strikes.

Starting with average_joe's Internet access.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 23 Jan 2013 @ 2:30am

Re: Re: Hey, Mike
That's four for Mike. Since we are at it I think I'll contribute to cut his connection by quoting them again!

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last.

You have enemies? Good. That means you�ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

There you go, 5th and 6th strikes. Your move [insert Mike's ISP here].
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2013 @ 3:41am

Couldn't resist ...
We shall leech till the end.
We shall leech off authors,
we shall leech off publishers,
we shall leech with growing confidence and growing strength off the web,
we shall defend our IP, whatever the cost may be.
We shall leech off the researchers,
we shall leech off the charitable memorials,
we shall leech off the newspapers and journals,
we shall leech off the libraries;
we shall never go public domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 23 Jan 2013 @ 10:14am

This was never the intention of copyright. My attitude is if the person who created the work is dead, then their work goes into the public domain. These families are nothing more than greedy heirs. I would love to be a relative of a great public figure, but I am not interested in getting a free ride because of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 23 Jan 2013 @ 11:29pm

Re:
Read the first quote. The first part of the post right after the title.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter Hirtle, 24 Jan 2013 @ 5:31am

Does the OGL apply?
A colleague in the UK wondered whether Singer bothered to check about copyright ownership. A large proportion of Churchill�s more memorable pronouncements were made in his roles as a minister of the Crown, notably as Prime Minister, and are thus Crown copyright, not copyright of the family. Singer could quote them as extensively as he liked under the Open Government Licence and some would probably be out of copyright altogether as published Crown works.

Of course, this would imply that the estate was trying to claim copyright were none exists. Who would believe that a rights holder might try to overreach on the extent of its rights?
[ link to this | view in thread ]