Steinbeck's Back

I'm glad, I think, to relay the news that John Steinbeck's family has won back the copyright to several of his most famous works:

In a case that could have significant consequences for families of artists who fought for creative control, New York judge Richard Owen ruled that Penguin Books must forfeit the copyright of 10 of Steinbeck's works, even though the novelist had signed the rights away in 1938.

The court battle pitched the novelist's granddaughter, Blake Smyle, and his son Thomas Steinbeck against Penguin Books and Paramount Pictures. Thomas Steinbeck had alleged that he was the victim of "a 30-year conspiracy to deprive John Steinbeck's blood heirs".

The judge argued that American copyright law acknowledges the reality that young authors could not know in advance "the high stature they would attain" and that it was therefore fair to allow them or their descendants to renegotiate copyright agreements.

I qualified by pleasure above for two reasons. First, as the article recognizes, if not for the absurd extensions of copyright by Congress, these works would already have been where they properly belonged: in the public domain. Second, though the idea of the family wresting control of their ancestors work away from a big corporation is facially attractive, I suppose it's not necessarily going to be a good thing for Steinbeck's work, or his audience. It certainly could be, but who knows? Perhaps the big corporation made available works that the family would not, or will not. It might not be the case with Steinbeck, but one can certainly imagine an artist's family having motives that are not necessarily ulterior or negative, but fail to line up with what the artist wanted.

At first I was also going to point out that it seemed strange that I should come by this item via a British newspaper, but perhaps it is not so strange. Where better to get your news about books than from a country that seems, at least on the surface, to still worship the novel?