Copyright horrors: ‘Peggy Sue’ could get screwed—and Canada, too
By Ficbot
The Vancouver Sun ran a great editorial yesterday about the current ‘Fair Copyright’ debate in Canada right now.
Our minister of culture, under pressure from American big business, was due to introduce a disastrous and very restrictive new copyright amendment prepared without input or discussion from voters. Under the leadership of the fabulous Michael Geist, however, the blogosphere caught wind. Activists organized. Minister Prentice was visited by several dozen constituents during his holiday Open House, and a rapidly growing Facebook group currently stands at almost 40,000 members, with local branches springing up for more targeted activism around the issue. Now, major papers like the Vancouver Sun are bringing the issue to the attention of the public at large.
Buddy Holly book project: Legal risks galore
I had been wanting to write about this for the TeleBlog for days, ever since I read about a woman whose life apparently inspired the song “Peggy Sue Got Married” (a partial inspiration for the movie shown in the poster). Due to legal pressure from Buddy Holly’s widow, the woman can’t publish a book, titled Whatever Happened to Peggy Sue? about a claimed friendship with the late rock star without the risk of being sued. It’s already being advertised online as “in stock.” Fingers crossed.
This story, to me, summed up everything wrong about copyright law. Does a person have special protections as far as creative works go? In some cases, yes. I am not permitted to write false or untrue things about another person. If I did, they could sue me for libel or slander. Additionally, I might be governed by a confidentiality agreement in certain circumstances. For example, celebrities often ask their employees to sign such agreements prohibiting them from writing a tell-all story. But is a friendship with a VIP by definition protectable? If I were to, for example, be walking down the street and I should happen to run into Angelina Jolie, should I need her permission to write an article about it? Should she be entitled to royalties if my article becomes the hit of the blogosphere? If this woman wants to write a book about her life as the Peggy Sue of the song, should his widow be able to stop it because she ‘owns the rights’ to the mere existence of a very public figure?
I had so many thoughts about this article and all its implications for authors, for editors, for creative types, for the spirit behind the concept of copyright in the first place. I didn’t know where to start. This editorial made it very simple for me: the headline reads, “Reformed copyright laws should not suppress creativity.” Really, everything else, Buddy Holly included, is just examples of why. The Sun is not saying creators shouldn’t get their fair share, it’s are saying the public should, too, that they should be able to reasonably live their lives and create their own narratives about it. newspaper is not advocating piracy. It’s saying that if you have legitimately obtained content, you should be able to use it as you see fit. You should be able to buy technology, to enjoy technology, to create technology—and then, in
the end—to write about it if you so please.
Popularity: 12% [?]
January 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
This post seems like a lot of handwringing over nothing. There is, of course, nothing preventing publishing of this book, period. Rather, the widow of Buddy Holly claims that at least some of the material in the book is inaccurate and will harm her company ad Buddy Holly’s image if published. And if she actually brings that lawsuit she’s going to lose. As the lawyer in the story linked to mentions, such a lawsuit would be frivolous at best.
“I am not permitted to write false or untrue things about another person. If I did, they could sue me for libel or slander.”
Well, they could, but they’d almost certainly lose if you were writing false or untrue things about a dead celebrity as is alleged here. Libel/slander suits against dead people just don’t go forward in the United States because of a common law assumption that dead people don’t have interests that allow defamation lawsuits to go forward.
Jonathan Turley wrote an op-ed a few years ago arguing for a change in the law to allow such suits. Seems like it would create more problems than it would resolve (especially in the case of theJohn Dillinger lawsuit he mentions…we don’t need judges ajudicating history).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091500999_pf.html
January 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I’ve met and worked with Peggy Sue Gerron and I have a copy of the book in question.
Nothing in the book is libelous and indeed any lawsuit will be dismissed.
Most of all, the publication of this book will hardly tarnish Holly’s image.
If anything it will shine some more light on what is essentially a story about a man whose complexity was seriously under-portrayed in his sanitized movie biopic.
“Whatever Happened to Peggy Sue” corrects erroneous accounts and adds a little lustre to other accounts of the singer’s life and reveals hitherto unknown feelings that the singer made clear to both the author and his other friends.
In a nutshell, Holly’s widow hasn’t a leg to stand on with regard to her claims.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I’m all for freedom of speech - even lame attempts to cash in on the success of others.
But Buddy’s widow isn’t objecting to the ‘fact’ of the book, but the ‘form’ of the book.
In fact, she’s probably mistaken; the book will be a boring waste of cash, with all the pre-publication nonsense hardly getting a mention.
Without the publicity, it probably would not have sold more than 20 copies … as it is, it might reach 62.
Grave robbers … who needs ‘em?
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I beg to differ with Jeffery Haas. You see, Jeffery, I am the Yvonne Hall she wrote about in her book. The comments attributed to me were totally false and exceptionally hateful. Furthermore, she certainly did not ask my permission and unlike Buddy, I am very much alive and well, nor am I a celebrity. At the time of her imaginary “conversation”, I had plans to marry the following year myself and did so. She and I took plane geometry at the same time and sat across the aisle from each other. I hardly think we needed an introduction and get acquainted session. Since his mom and mine were such close friends, could anyone possibly be expected to believe that I would question whether they “really got married”? She was not there when her irate father showed up on our doorstep wanting to know where they had gone, either. As for his mom, I cannot recall an unkind thing she ever had to say to me about Peggy. I did ocassionally hear her refer to her and Jerry as “just a couple of kids”. What parent hasn’t at some point? Jerry and I remain friends to this day…I still call him Jerry and don’t get yelled at for it, either. He came to our town a couple of years ago for a show and we had a great visit. I have pictures taken backstage with Jerry, Joe B., Sonny, my husband, me, my son, and grandson. My husband and I have been invited to visit him and his wife. My brother often does. I also have documents that prove much of her book is her own fantasy. Maria just seems to be suing for the wrong reasons. What an opportunity Peggy missed to write a wonderful book about a wonderful time and wonderful people instead of what she chose. I am not only disappointed, but angry.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Interesting. Still even if what Yvonne says is true (and I have no reason to doubt her), American law would make it very hard to either a) stop the book or b) successfully sue for damages unless she can demonstrate that not only is this account false, but that Gerron knows it is false and is publishing it anyway to be malicious.
It is amusing, though, that Gerron’s website complains about the inaccuracies in the completely fictional “Peggy Sue Got Married” movie. I completely agree…they totally screwed up the way time travel *really* works.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:28 am
I cannot attest to Peggy’s motives, but I would suspect money. I knew Buddy, too, and cannot imagine that he would go behind his best friend’s back and say the things to her she claims. I think his loyalties ran way too deep for that. I still have the letters Jerry wrote me when they first went on tour in 1957. Some of the documentation I mentioned is contained in the booklet included in a boxed set titled “The Complete Buddy Holly” by MCA Records. There are photo copies of letters, pages from Buddy’s notes which show the song “Cindy Lou” listed but not “Peggy Sue”, pictures, etc. Check it out. I have others, too, including copies of some of Buddy’s letters. One of those was written about 6 weeks before his death. It certainly doesn’t indicate anything about divorce, but praises Maria. I have also written a letter to Peggy Sue and her co-author which contains much of this same information and more. In that letter, I offer to meet with her face to face, if she would like.