I stumbled across an article the other day that discussed William Faulkner’s famous quote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past” and the fact that this line was said in the movie “Midnight in Paris”. Apparently, this is a huge deal, as the company that owns the right to many of Faulkner’s works is suing because of this statement. Now, we all know that the main purpose of copyright it to protect the work and rights of the author. However, I think it is safe to say that the reason the company is suing in this case is for personal gain, not to protect the rights of the author (as not only is the author dead, but character in the movie who states this line mentions right after that it was Faulkner who stated it). I think that this is a prime example of how many companies who own the rights of a deceased author’s work may abuse this power and copyright as a whole, using it mainly to make money. I really don’t think that the company suing in this case is worried that Faulkner’s work is being stolen.
Here is the article:faulkner-estate-sues-over-midnight-in-paris-quote.html
This is an interesting point because we really do not know if the company is concerned with preserving Faulkner’s work or if they want to make money. I feel like this is true for music as well because there are many compositions that are protected under copyright laws but why is that the case when the composer has been deceased for numerous years and when copyright law did not exist during that time. So in a way are these companies taking credit for these works of art when it really isn’t theirs either?
I would definitely agree with the statement that the company is looking for personal gain. If the person in the movie did say that the quote was from Faulkner, then they have given credit to the person who originally coined the term. Candace is right when it seems that companies are taking credit for items that they didn’t originally create. For example, Michael Jackson owns the rights to Hey Jude. Every time Paul McCartney wants to play the song, he has to pay Michael Jackson (or whoever, nowadays) for the rights to play it once. It seems a little ridiculous that someone can’t play a song that they themselves wrote because someone else owns the copyright for it.