New Joyce dispute

[El Libre]

Controversy and James Joyce are never far apart. Yesterday's Irish Times has a piece by Terence Killeen revealing that the James Joyce Foundation in Zurich has dissociated itself from the recent publication in Dublin of a short story by Joyce, titled 'The Cats of Copenhagen', the manuscript of which is held by the Foundation. But hold on, wasn't it only big bad Stephen Joyce of the Joyce Estate who insisted that his permission was required in order to publish the author's work, and has not copyright in same lapsed since the beginning of this year?

The 'Cats' story has been published in a limited and very expensive edition by Ithys Press, whose spokesperson is one Anastasia Herbert, better known in the Joycean world as Stacey Herbert. Joyce expert Danis Rose also appears to have a connection with the publishing company.

The Zurich Foundation probably was owed at least the courtesy of being informed that the story was to be published, but it seems to have been kept completely in the dark. The Joycean universe is a rather small place where most of the players know each other. Thus Terence Killeen, who might have declared an interest, is on the board of the James Joyce Centre in Dublin, where the Bloomsday Festival Director is none other than - Stacey Herbert. Internal communications are obviously not very good, as the Joyce Centre's Facebook page contains links to the Irish Times article and Ithys Press's rather angry 'unexpurgated' reply to Killeen. Some in the Joyce Centre may not be pleased at being drawn into the controversy, as there is another post on Facebook stating that 'we have not endorsed nor are we selling the recent publication 'The Cats of Copenhagen''.

[El Libre]

Some quotes in today's Guardian, from Fritz Senn of the Zurich Joyce Foundation, which holds the manuscript of the 'Cats of Copenhagen' published by Ithys Press in Dublin:

"We have been completely overlooked and ignored. It's only common decency to ask the owner . . . We are outraged. We have had no hand in this unfair thing and feel not just ignored but cheated. . . . Copyright has been lifted only, we believe, from the published material. All the huge amount of non-published material we believe is still under copyright, so this is, we believe, an infringement of that . . . ".

Expressing concern that the "very belligerent" Joyce estate might sue, Senn also stated: "We haven't heard from them [but] what I'm afraid of is that with the large amount of copyright taken away from them, their remaining territory will be defended even more fiercely".

[johnfás]

The only issue is whether it is under copyright. If it isn't under copyright there is no exclusive right over the work and there is no dispute. Simple as.

[Gimpanzee]

The prissiness regarding Joyce's works gets on my wick TBH. Publish and be damned.

[H.R. Haldeman]

It's like Ivy Day in the Committee Room: ghosts and echoes of a glorious past descending over time into pettiness, squabbling and inertia. Perhaps if one of these concerned Joyceans stood up and read 'Cats of Copenhagen' aloud, there was be a momentary hiatus of quiet refection and maybe even an epiphany: that somewhere along the line Joyce's inheritance has been betrayed.

[Astral Peaks]

It does seem bitchy:

The attempt by Mr Fritz Senn of the Zurich Joyce Centre proprietarily to assert some right on this now public-domain document is preposterous. The said Centre has no rights in law in the copyright of the papers donated (given free) by Dr Jahnke. It is indeed the case that the Centre over recent years has employed people to prepare work for publication on other materials also donated by Dr Jahnke. How can this be viewed differently, or as a special case?

From: Ithys Press

Thanks, Ex Libre, for putting this up.

[Astral Peaks]

Some quotes in today's Guardian, from Fritz Senn of the Zurich Joyce Foundation, which holds the manuscript of the 'Cats of Copenhagen' published by Ithys Press in Dublin:

"We have been completely overlooked and ignored. It's only common decency to ask the owner . . . We are outraged. We have had no hand in this unfair thing and feel not just ignored but cheated. . . . Copyright has been lifted only, we believe, from the published material. All the huge amount of non-published material we believe is still under copyright, so this is, we believe, an infringement of that . . . ".

Expressing concern that the "very belligerent" Joyce estate might sue, Senn also stated: "We haven't heard from them [but] what I'm afraid of is that with the large amount of copyright taken away from them, their remaining territory will be defended even more fiercely".

This from Ms Herbert:

Mr Senn’s statement that ‘it is only now that the abuse has come to light’ is defamatory in that no ‘abuse’ (some act that is not licit) has taken place. If Mr Senn’s feathers are ruffled, this is insufficient ground for his trumpeting of the term ‘abuse’, and only reveals precisely how uninterested he and others of like opinion are in forwarding freedom of publication and artistic interpretation now that the authority of the Estate has come to a close.

I love when arcane disputes in cloistered halls spill forth in to the public discourse.

[zippo222]

Has Mr Norris declaimed on this yet ?

[El Libre]

It was known that Danis Rose (real name Denis O'Hanlon) would be publishing lots of stuff once the copyright on Joyce's works had expired, but the scale of his 6-volume edition of manuscripts as revealed in the Irish Times is a major surprise. Continuing the trend of high pricing started by the recent Cats of Copenhagen publication controversy, the new collection will set you back €800. The National Library, which holds the original manuscripts courtesy of a donation of €12.6 million of taxpayers' money, has responded to Rose's audacious coup by hurriedly putting up digital images of the manuscripts online. It should be noted that the provenance of Joycean manuscripts acquired by the National Library is highly suspect, with the possibility that they were removed from the author's Paris flat and never returned to his heirs after his death in 1941. Furthermore, the acquisition of some Finnegans Wake manuscripts in 2006 for €1.17 million has been described as a 'sting', following the revelation by the said Danis Rose that they could have been purchased for about a third of that price. See the interesting transcription of the Committee of Public Accounts examination of the scandal in October 2008.

[El Libre]

It was just one of the many crazy things that happened during the Celtic Tiger years, the National Library acquiring caches of Joyce manuscripts sometimes of dubious provenance at a cost to the public purse of nearly €15 million. Rather than the expected warm glow of prestige the acquisitions have brought the Library troubles galore. Thus a member of the Public Accounts Committee used the term 'sting' when describing the peculiar sequence of events which saw less than a dozen pages of Finnegans Wake drafts being purchased by the Library from a sometime state contractor for €1.17 million in 2006, when they could have been obtained for about €400,000.

It was Danis Rose (real name Denis O'Hanlon) who originally drew the Library's attention to the availability of the Wake manuscripts in 2004 and who revealed that due to its management's still not fully explained tardiness they eventually went for three times the original asking price. In today's Irish Times Rose has a letter putting his side of the story in relation to his new edition of Ulysses manuscripts described in the above post. The first point to note is that Rose confirms that it is his view that while Joyce manuscripts passed into public domain copyright in January of this year, as the law stands he has created a new copyright lasting 25 years in respect of the material contained in his new publication. Thus Rose claims that the National Library is 'in continuing infringement of my copyright' by placing digital copies of these Joycean manuscripts on its website. Can it be true that the National Library no longer controls the copyright of a considerable portion of the Joycean mansuscripts on which it has wasted, sorry expended millions of public funds?

Rose further reveals that he decided to proceed with his latest publishing venture alone when his offer to work with the National Library was rebuffed by the Director Fiona Ross. Rose also declares that he had stated his 'intention to pass over to the Irish State my newly acquired rights for the genuinely free use of these materials by the public'. He thunders in conclusion that the affair 'exemplifies the problems that have long beset Ireland, where the prevailing attitude is to begrudge and prevent entrepreneurial endeavours of private citizens even when these stand to significantly benefit the public’s collective interests'.

Ouch, what's going to happen next?