What Would You Do If...

[Penelope]

Redacted

[KiteRunner]

Penelope, can't you contact the publisher of the 1980's edition (or even the original edition if the company still exists) and pass on what you have heard - they might be able to find out who it is that is planning to publish it and have it stopped.

Some time ago, a writer called Dale Spender wrote a book called "The Diary of Elizabeth Pepys" which was fiction but put together as though it was a real book she had found, and an academic believed it was real and quoted it in her work:
d i a p s a l m a t a: the story of a literary hoax; or, how Elizabeth Pepys came to be quoted on "turds that do fly"
(sorry if the colours on there give you a headache!)

[Janet]

Not perhaps in quite the same league but my OH has a similar problem at present with a text book he wrote about 5 years ago. Somebody has just asked him if he can copy some of his diagrams, being deliberately vague as to how many. OH made further enquiries, to find he virtually wanted to lift half the book and call it his own. OH immediately referred the whole lot to the Publisher who is now sorting it all out so contacting the Publisher is the best idea. And no he will not be allowed to do what he wants, which would have been to copy OH's work.

Janet

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

...it was found and published in the 1980s and is well within copyright...

Would that undermine an attempt to prevent this new publication or (due to copyright for instance) make it easier to stop re-publishing? If you or someone else is within your rights to stop publication then the researcher, charity and the publishers all have some responsibility.

At the very least if the details within are presented as fact when in truth they are fiction it has to have a bearing on the way the whole thing is handled (and if published) how it is marketed. Most of the yankie tv shows display "reconstruction based on actual events" type disclaimers.

Knowing that the American system of litigation slowly arrived here i would really look closely at how living relatives may be affected (and how easy they would be to trace given the contents).

It's a hard one to call but a lot depends on what the contents are.

[Guy]

1) the MS was created in 1930s therefore under Federal copyright law (of that date 1907) it would have to be registered to obtain copyright.
That being the case there is no legal reason why the US charity could not publish the MS.

2) By disputing the right to publish you could easily provide perfect publicity to turn the low interest diary into a best seller.

Many years ago a book was written about Jack Gittins, Master Horseman (my mum's first husband) in which she was slandered by the author.
What was my mum's reaction?
"Anybody can see the woman was in love with Jack and her comments were made out of jealousy, let the people read the book and make up their own minds”.

Cheers
Guy

[Olde Crone Holden]

Penelope

Have been thinking about this, and changed my opinion half way through my think!

I fully understand why you are so cross - I would be too, in your position.

However, I suddenly thought about all the books I have read, historical novels which were fictionalised accounts of some famous character's life. (Think Jean Plaidy, pmsl)

I THINK, therefore, that as long as there is a clear indication that the work is one of FICTION, there isn't very much to be done. If idiots read it and think it is fact set in stone, well more fool them.

However, I wouldn't let that stop me writing to the charity and pointing out the shortcomings of the "diary" - that it is fiction not fact, and these people are your ancestors and you can supply them with the correct facts, should they be interested...perhaps as a foreword, as is customary with historical fiction.

OC

[Kit]

That's the problem OC, she doesn't know who the charity is.

It's interesting that Penelope was given a copy if it is about to be republished. I wonder if the "researcher" has the original MS and is thinking of publishing it but wanted to know if it was real before he did.

[Penelope]

Redacted

[Olde Crone Holden]

Ah, well, inaccuracies of FICTION drive me insane! I think these are sometimes worse than inaccuracies of fact, lol.

I'm reading some drivellish book - fiction - about an irritating man who is an amateur genealogist and gets murdered (Hahahaha!).

I was skimming this tripe but was shot into fury by the statement that "she was born in 1907 and married in 1929. No one had ever been able to find her on a census AFTER THAT"

Well no of COURSE they hadn't found her! It's this kind of ill-researched, erm, research, which annoys me so much, like your purple rolling hills that don't exist.

Perhaps you should just bide your time and then publish the "real" diary - that is, YOUR version, with the facts!

OC

[KiteRunner]

I was getting really annoyed reading one of the "Kate Ivory" mystery series by Veronica Stallwood, because the heroine and her mother were contacted by an amateur genealogist who said their surname, Ivory, was very rare and everyone with that name was related, but it turned out he was scamming them, so that was o.k.