[carrozo]

Really shocking to see so many comments here arguing we have a right to see/read/hear private, unpublished work that a deceased artist left clear instructions to destroy in the event of their death. Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket? Or is it only artists who must relinquish their privacy and last wishes to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the general public?

[fnordpiglet]

In this specific case the authors state of mind is important to consider. Being far along in dementia his will and thoughts are not necessarily reliably indicative of their unimpaired will and thoughts. His children struggled with his instructions and as they reflected over a non trivial period of time and reread the work they felt he had made a mistake, which is plausible given advanced dementia, and falls within the realm of their judgement as his caretaker. I think this is an entirely legitimate decision on their part, and not really up to us to second guess.

There’s also the point parallel comments make that public figures private works are often of general interest. The will and desires of the deceased carry weight - but it decreases over time as they are in fact dead. If we found Julius Caesar’s private diary with admonitions to not read it, would we honor that?

[freetanga]

This is not a life or death decision, or that Gabo left his house to a cult: this is an unnecessary cash grab from his kids to go against his father memory.

Even if he was out of his proper mind, choosing not to publish was the elegant thing to do. They already milked their father for years, now they should earn their own money.

Giving away the novel to a national university for academic discussion would also be more elegant than this.

[jhgb]

"Giving away the novel to a national university for academic discussion"

Except a national university will almost certainly buy a copy, so your desired academic discussion will be unimpeded.

[benj111]

I think the profit motive is the dividing line for me.

If they think it's important to release the work, they shouldn't be profiting from it.

[pests]

I agree and take it a bit further with buildings and such being designed historical places and all the restrictions that comes with.

Fine, great, they were once something awesome - but do we really need to rob every future generation of that building or use? It must forever be a memory of distant past?

[zvmaz]

> In this specific case the authors state of mind is important to consider. Being far along in dementia his will and thoughts are not necessarily reliably indicative of their unimpaired will and thoughts

An argument can be made to the effect that he could not give his full consent given that he probably lost his capacities to make an informed decision.

A moral quandary nonetheless.

[lukan]

"If we found Julius Caesar’s private diary with admonitions to not read it, would we honor that?"

Judging by modern morals, Julius Caesar would be guilty of multiple genocidal war crimes. His private diaries would be rather evidence.

"that public figures private works are often of general interest."

This argument is basically, that if only enough people want something, they get the right. Which is not something I am a huge fan about. And Garcia was no Imperator, deciding the fate of millions, but a private writer.

And the argument about dementia, if he would have been so far away in dementia, while making the decision, I do not think his sons would have judged so harshly about themself:

"We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]?

"And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."

I think this is mainly a internal familiy thing if his sons decide to publish and ignore their fathers wish. But I probably won't read it.

And it is a different case with Kafka:

"Before author Franz Kafka died from tuberculosis in 1924, he told friend Max Brod to burn all of his work. However, between 1925 and 1935 Brod published his collection of works including The Trial, The Castle and Amerika."

Because he told his friend Brod before, that he will ask him to destroy his works once he dies - and Brod told him clearly, that if he will do that, he will refuse and publish it anyway. So rather a kafkaesk joke all in all and no betrayal. If Kafka really would have wanted someone destroy his works, he could have asked someone else.

[lynx23]

Wow, so you just need to be old enough, and then people like you will come along and declare that you're no longer cognitively able to decide anything, and therefore everything you said is moot? Disrespectful paragraphs like yours are one of the reasons why I would prefer the ability to die on demand, inst4ead of being subjected to whatever other people deem appropriate because I am supposedly no longer able to decide for my own. I'd really prefer to go, instead of being subjected to people like you.

[brandall10]

Dementia made my Richard Dawkins idolizing, ethnically Jewish grandfather convert to Christianity at the end of his life… because his girlfriend’s family was that way. He had 4 strokes over a 2 year period and lived the last 4 years of his life as a smiley vegetable with advanced Alzheimer’s. The prior 76 years had been spent as a cynic who would go on hour long rants about the damage religion had done to the world. It was such an odd situation that I had to correct the record at his funeral.

[tgv]

Dementia is no joke. It becomes quite clear when people start losing their judgement. But from your reaction, it seems you have some misconceptions. My mother had dementia (and other problems). When it became too hard for her to bear, she indeed chose euthanasia, a choice she had made long before she started suffering from it, and died with dignity, surrounded by her loved ones. It is an opportunity I truly wish to be available to everyone who suffers from a deterioting condition.

[egeozcan]

My uncle has dementia and he wants to spend all his money on getting his car washed (he cannot drive anymore). Should his children honor his wishes or try to use his money for his own good?

I think you are being too aggressive in your cause for personal freedom and justice. I mean, I do understand where you are coming from but perhaps saying "I'd really prefer to go, instead of being subjected to people like you" goes a bit too far.

[lynx23]

I have a disability. Independence is a much more important topic to me then for most people that have independence as a given. Even though you might not like my attitude, I feel that way. The day I loose my independence, and other people are allowed to decide for me, I'd prefer to end it there. I realize this might feel very strange to you, but as said, you probably dont know what it means to fight for your independence and to be allowed to take your own decisions.

[squigz]

As someone with a disability as well, and who has had family members fall apart with dementia, I don't think this is a very good take.

Do you understand that most people, even in a stable state of mind, can't reasonably decide to just "end it there"? Let alone someone with advanced dementia... Maybe one day if society stops putting so much value on empty life and we can peacefully end it when it's time, but that day is likely far away.

[Beldin]

I think your uncle's case is a bit different of that from a world-famous author who has writings that he didn't publish, who wants those not published after he's gone.

As others have pointed out, if his children really thought this was important for his legacy and he only had the destructive wish due to dementia, they could have made the writings available without profiting from that.

[paxcoder]

From the article:

>We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]? And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for.

[sowbug]

The law generally frowns on "dead hand control" of real and personal property that's been passed on to successors. Society is believed to be better off if living people actually own what they own.

The classic legal example is the Rule Against Perpetuities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities), which limits how much control a will or trust instrument can exert over real property. You wouldn't believe the lengths people have historically gone to make sure their notion of "the right thing" happens for many years after they die.

As a sibling commenter said, if you don't want people to truly own your personal property when you die, then you should destroy it. Or consider giving it to someone else.

[missedthecue]

"if you don't want people to truly own your personal property when you die, then you should destroy it. "

If I want to use something while I'm alive but don't want others to have/see/use/know about it, what's the best way to handle this? The problem here is that no one knows when they're going to die, or if they'll be lucid enough when they're close to take care of things like that.

[djur]

I think the most rational course of action would be to accept that this is impossible and to try not to worry about future events that you, by definition, will not be present to have feelings about.

[neilkk]

Should we act this way with regards to all future events? Should I for example vote for leaders whom I believe will make decisions which make things better during my lifetime only to get much worse in the far future after I'll probably have died? If I have a disabled family member who will likely outlive me, should I ignore the fact that they will continue to require care after my death, when planning my financial affairs?

[djur]

Those are actions you can take with expected outcomes, not impossible desires. The equivalent in this case would be destroying your work when you're alive, or asking your executor to destroy it with the understanding that your desires may be disregarded.

[neilkk]

You might think that making sure your children will be cared for after you are dead is an impossible desire. You might think that leaving a will specifying your intentions for unpublished work is an action with an expected outcome. The line between actions with expected outcomes and impossible desires seems hard to establish.

[lynx23]

Disability and the need for care by others are not always the same thing. Please don't imply in your writing that everyone "disabled" needs care and financial support by family members, that is pretty much generalised patronisation. I have a disability, but nobody needs to take care of me, and I have my own (sufficient) income.

[missedthecue]

He didn't imply that

[ptero]

There is no ideal solution to this; if this is important to you, find someone (a person or a company) to handle your final wishes when you die.

But that agreement should be a private one, not something that the society should be enforcing. My 2c.

[sowbug]

I don't personally have this desire, so I haven't thought much about it.

I guess for online stuff make sure all means of access are behind passwords that will be lost when you die.

For physical property, seems like a hard problem unless you booby trap your stuff, which is illegal and inconsiderate -- not to mention that it will likely accelerate your own demise.

[safety1st]

Simple, use a dead man's switch. The simplest form being some kind of data access which can be set to expire, and the expiration date can only be extended by you.

[Kathula]

Simple for the audience on HN perhaps but not for the non-technical everyday person.

[safety1st]

A conveyor belt with a button that needs to be held down for the belt to run, is a dead man's switch

A Google Drive folder which has a sharing policy set to expire in 30 days, is a dead man's switch

You don't need to be technical to use a dead man's switch.

[JumpCrisscross]

For context, waqfs, an Islamic financial instrument [1], are hypothesised to have contributed to the end of the Islamic golden age. So many assets were tied up by the dead.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf

[luuurker]

> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

It's not up to me as I'll be dead.

We should keep in mind that our wishes may or may not be respected and plan accordingly. Get rid of journals that can't be read by anyone else, set your browser to forget its history, encrypt the hidden photo gallery.

[Aeolun]

> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

No clue, but it certainly won’t be up to me. When I’m dead that’ll all be up to the ones left behind. What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead? They won’t care any more.

[buran77]

> What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead?

I'd say the law is a good reference for that. Some countries legislate inheritance and related topics different from others. Some let the person decide exactly what happens with their inheritance and under which conditions, others have more generic rules to go to the next of kin and don't have the concept of wishes.

[nullhole]

Not to be too aloof, but if the future doesn't care about the past, why should the past care about the future?

[ptero]

"Does not care" is not the case here. Folks usually do care about the wishes of their ancestors and take those into account. But when there is a clear conflict between the wishes of the living and the wishes of the dead, the living win. This is normal and healthy and does not indicate indifference. My 2c.

[BEEdwards]

considering how fast we're speed running climate change I don't even think the present cares about the future...

[thfuran]

There's no symmetry there. The future can be changed. The past can't.

[bluerooibos]

> What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that's already dead?

Well, that's why wills exist.

If you decided to split your wealth between your grandchildren when you passed away, should that wish be discarded now because you're dead so who cares?

[Aeolun]

Of course not, but that has more to do with making things workable for the living (e.g. no constant fights over inheritance) than with the wishes of the dead.

[etc-hosts]

Billionaires spend a lot of time and effort in managing their money from beyond the grave.

[Dalewyn]

>What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead?

Because you're (hopefully!) not an asshole of a human being?

If the dying wish of a man costs you nothing to execute, why not? Men are brought into this world regardless of their wishes, can't men at least exit this plane of existence according to their wishes?

[CogitoCogito]

> If the dying wish of a man costs you nothing to execute, why not?

That’s not a very good argument in the case in question. The sons made money by publishing the book.

[Aeolun]

> If the dying wish of a man costs you nothing to execute, why not?

Sure, but this is for the satisfaction and closure of the living, not for the dead. The dead aren’t satisfied, or anything else really.

[moralestapia]

> What point is there in satisfying the wishes of someone that’s already dead?

Because the concept of honor should transcend death, come on.

[thfuran]

Should I get to register my intention to always vote for a particular political party and have those votes counted in every election regardless of whether I'm still alive?

[irrational]

What exactly is honor and who's honor are we talking about?

[vonjuice]

Would you say that honor is worth more than now having the works of Kafka available for all of humanity to read?

What would human kind have gained from not having read The Metamorphosis or The Trial and so many others?

[coldtea]

>Would you say that honor is worth more than now having the works of Kafka available for all of humanity to read?

I made this argument in this thread, but come to think of it there's an opposite argument too:

If honor was worth more, Kafka's works describing life as a hellish landscape of bureucratic indifference, betrayal, control, and alienation, wouldn't have been as descriptive of the state of humanity.

>What would human kind have gained from not having read The Metamorphosis or The Trial and so many others?

If they have gained honor, that would have been worth 1000 Trials and Metamorphosis.

If they haven't, and just read them violating Kafka's request, they'd be the person The Trial and Metamorphosis protested about, just another cog in the machinery of humilliation and degradation.

[vonjuice]

I did not know much context about the specifics, and I just informed myself, and I have to see I entirely disagree with you.

Betrayal, control and alienation are exactly what informs Kafka's request. Faith (in his friend, in art) and openness are what inspired his friend not to obey Kafka's wish born out of that alienation and shame.

Bureaucracy never enters into this at all. There is no humiliation, Kafka is considered to be one of the greatest writers ever.

First of all, the request was in a letter. His friend (they were friends for decades) found the letter, it's not like he agreed beforehand. Secondly this friend was a writer himself. No one knows more the embarrassment and shame that can come from looking at one's own art as much as another artist, but this is just inherently the nature of making art, and what are friends for if not to shake us out of that wrong view that we get from our perspective being too close?

Frankly I think you're making lofty claims for their own sake. This is not a matter of "humanity gaining honor", it was a matter of a man believing in his friend's art, and the rest of us benefiting from that "betrayal".

[moralestapia]

>they'd be the person The Trial and Metamorphosis protested about

Nailed it!

[Mistletoe]

Thanks for restoring my faith in HN today. Sometimes I read the most absurd takes here and wonder if it is me that is wrong or crazy.

[sneak]

Dead people cannot be wronged. When someone dies, all obligations to that person are invalidated.

[rightbyte]

Promises are promises. The only fair argument the heirs could do is to claim the father didn't understand his decision to not wanting to publish the script.

[Aeolun]

Yes, but if there’s only one party that can be wronged by breaking the promise (e.g. feeling bad you broke a promise to your dead father), it becomes a bit different.

Sure, most people would feel terrible about doing that. But you would keep that promise out of respect, not because the dead are hurt by breaking it.

[sneak]

Promises to non-entities aren’t promises anymore.

[sanitycheck]

Uh-huh. So it might be OK to, for example, construct an animatronic human centipede out of fresh corpses? Or perhaps not?

[thfuran]

That sounds both unsanitary and wasteful of potentially useful organs. I'd recommend against it.

[Aeolun]

I mean, it would be disrespectful, and probably make a lot of people very unhappy, but it wouldn’t be the dead whose bodies you used.

[DeathArrow]

It can be argued that is a crime to destroy the works of one of the greatest writers in the world. Some people might also argue that such works belong to humanity more than they belong to the artist and that the "greater public good" trumps personal wishes.

If you discover a lost manuscript of Shakespeare along with the note: "These papers must be burnt!", would you do it?

I am not arguing in either direction, I am trying to say that things are not so simple and there might be some nuances. Vincent Van Gogh was mentally ill for a long period. Would you destroy his works if you find out that he expressed his wishes in that direction?

[watwut]

It is not a crime to destroy unfinished work the author wanted to be destroyed upon his death. It really really is not a crime, no matter how much you want to read it. Unless the document itself is proof of crime or something similar ... which this one is not.

[coldtea]

>Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

Once we kick the bucket yes. Just ask us then, and you'll see that we don't mind. And even if we did, you still get to do it, provided you have access.

Do you think your kids wont, if they find them? Or if you're a public figure, that the world at large wont?

Not to mention that a work of art of a great novelist (as opposed to the private journals of some random person) might be of more benefit to the world than following the instructions in their will.

[sramsay]

I absolutely understand what you're saying. And you might be right in this particular case. But there's a difference between the "you" you have in mind here and figures of literally world-historical significance.

I doubt the "morbid curiosity of the general public" could ever succeed as a justification on ethical grounds, but as a literature scholar, I can say that there are usually other purposes in view. At some point, the work of an author like García Márquez becomes an important part of the world-wide human record and historians who study that record are not doing so out of morbid anything. In this case, we're trying to understand the evolution of one of the most important authors (and associated literary movements) in the twentieth century.

I've seen these kinds of decisions being made on the scholarly side (opening archives, publishing letters, etc.). I can tell you they aren't made lightly, and one of the ways we tend to adjudicate these dilemmas is by weighing the "privacy and last wishes" of an individual against the desire of the broader culture to understand itself and its history. Sometimes that latter claim isn't strong enough. But sometimes it really is.

[jrumbut]

It's especially true because of this line that could have easily come out of a Marquez novel:

> "And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."

[op00to]

If you want to look at my stuff when I die and you can convince my next of kin to do so, go nuts.

[karaterobot]

The point is not whether it's okay to look at someone's private documents after they're dead. The point is whether you should honor the wishes of someone you care about who has died, after they've told you their wishes while still alive. Do you have any obligation to your friends or family after they have died, and what does your answer to this say about you? I think it's a different question, and a different answer, and that's the actual case we should be talking about.

Personally, I think only an absolute bastard would agree to what a dying person asked them to do—or not to do, in this case—and then go back on it after they died.

[wolpoli]

> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

If it is of significance to the living world, then yes, it'll be published. Anne Frank's dairy is an example of that.

Is it the right thing to do? I'll leave the question for an ethicist.

[latexr]

> Anne Frank's dairy is an example of that.

From Wikipedia’s page on Anne Frank[1]:

> Otto, the only survivor of the Frank family, returned to Amsterdam after the war to find that Anne's diary had been saved by his female secretaries, Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl. He decided to fulfil his daughter's greatest wish to become a writer. He published her diary in 1947.

Her diary was published because her father had reason to believe it was something she would have approved of. In Márquez’s case we’re talking about going against the author’s expressed wishes. The situations are polar opposites.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank

[neilkk]

We only have Otto Frank's word for it that this is what she would have wanted. And he is known not to have had respect for her legacy in every way, for example editing the diary to remove criticism of himself.

Also, 'wanting to be a writer' does not necessarily mean that you would have wanted to have a specifically private piece of writing published.

[parineum]

Even if he's a liar and she didn't even want to be a writer, at least he left a plausible reason why it might be what she would want. In the absence of her actual wishes, that's the best we can do and, given the impact that the journal has had on the world, I find it hard to believe that anyone would not want that work published.

This, on the other hand, is someone going against explicitly stated wishes. It's not a very comparable situation.

[neilkk]

So the requirement is simply to come up with 'a plausible reason why it might be what [they] would want'?

[parineum]

I'm not saying it would be uncontroversial but it'd be a hell of a lot better than doing the exact opposite of explicit instructions.

[wolpoli]

My bad. I did not realize that she rescented her early wish that "she would never allow anyone to read it" [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank

[Zals]

Her diary is not needed and it was a money grab by a dude that understood that. How the fuck you name a diary as helpful for humanity?

[latexr]

The “dude” was her father, who published it because he “decided to fulfil his daughter's greatest wish to become a writer”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank

[slater]

> How the fuck you name a diary as helpful for humanity?

Tell me you've never read Anne Frank's diary, without telling me you've never read Anne Frank's diary.

[JoeAltmaier]

He's dead. Now the thing that matters is, what other people think and want. Especially his executors. Almost by definition.

He wanted it destroyed? He could have done it himself.

Don't put weird things in your will. Do them before you die. At least then, you know they got done. And get to see them get done!

All these people who leave things to their granddaughter or whatever, jewelry, the family dingus, just give it now! Enjoy their thanks, see them enjoy it.

[edanm]

I'm going to go ahead and say that the direct family, who was entrusted with the rights to the book, are in a better position to decide if this is ok or not than random person on the internet who only heard about this issue today.

Assuming they weren't estranged or anything, they obviously knew their father and understood his wishes better than any of us.

[bryanrasmussen]

>Really shocking to see so many comments here arguing we have a right to see/read/hear private, unpublished work that a deceased artist left

ok, but then there wouldn't really be any Kafka if instructions to destroy writing was reliably carried out.

[timwaagh]

Look he is no more so he won't be offended. It is his family that is doing this. Unless some other similarly close family member objects I don't see a big issue.

[firebat45]

Exactly this!

Replace "novel" with "nude pictures" and the moral side of this becomes much more obvious.

It doesn't matter if he had dementia. It doesn't matter if people appreciate the novel or if his kids feel that "it's important to release it". The novel was his creation and he specifically did not want it released.

Unsurprisingly though, money outweighs his requests.

[hall0ween]

Great points, and truly not in sarcasm. In the US, photos of intimate moments are plastered publicly on the internet by many.

Though, I doubt the line is always straightforward. There must have been reasons (hopefully not solely profit driven…). For example, Kafka. Granted I read, skimmed really, in an article that while his instructions were to destroy his writings, that he wanted them published.

[jrflowers]

>Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

Of course not, yet no one will donate to my non profit “refill all of the excavated Pompeii cavities” project. There is a sort of arbitrary and hypocritical “dead” vs “even more dead” position that people take with their misgiven concepts of “history”

[HumblyTossed]

The entitlement is indeed shocking. I don’t get why its so hard to simply do what someone asked to be done with their own property.

[luuurker]

It's not hard and I understand your point, but you have no control over what happens after you die. You know that your wishes may or may not be respected, so destroy/encrypt what you don't want to be seen by others while you can.

In any case, it's only a problem for the living. Dead you won't be bothered by it.

[sgustard]

I find it more entitled to expect that "property" is a concept that transcends society's needs. Personally I require that my private collection of Picassos is burned upon my death.

[HumblyTossed]

> transcends society's needs.

There's no need here. Only want.

[PheonixPharts]

> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

Once you are dead, you are dead, it's the same as if you never existed in the first place. I completely fail to understand how my wishes are relevant after I no longer exist.

What shame or embarrassment can I feel when I'm dead? Promise me on my death bed my secrets will never be revealed and the second I'm gone, share them and it won't change the peace of mind I had. Likewise the state of my mind at the moment of death is irrelevant because I'll be dead.

It's bizarre to me to see you are so troubled by this. Do you care what happens after your dead? Do you care what's happening on a planet so distant and foreign you do not even know it exists or what it's inhabitants are like? The world after you are dead will be far more foreign to you than such a world that exists today.

In time all humans will be dead. In time all evidence of this planet will be erased. If alien life should come across some rock with Gabriel García Márquez last writing and note saying "do not read" are found should that alien life honor that request? What moral system are you deriving these beliefs from?

[jsdwarf]

We probably wouldn't know anything about Kafka's Works if his agent Max Brod had adhered to Kafka's instructions to destroy all his notebooks and manuscripts upon death.

[Gud]

So? How can it be legal to publish someone elses work?

[cvalka]

Yes. There's less expectation of privacy for public and famous people. Human knowledge and progress > privacy of famous people

[bowsamic]

> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

I think many here would argue yes

[jeltz]

Yes, you do. If my siblings put all my stuff online I wouldn't care. When I am dead I am dead and it is their choice.

[Brian_K_White]

If he had dementia at the time, then they probably had power of attorney at the time. This places the decision entirely within all 3 of their moral, ethical, and legals rights to make that decision. Not just a legal technicality but really their right, like an internal family discussion that no one else has any right to even opine on.

And then after death, the executor has that same right. Twice over, it's their call, not ours. It's more wrong for us to say they are wrong than it is for them to say their fathers will is wrong.

I would go even further and say you have very few to maybe zero rights after death. We do some things out of respect for each other but really I don't see how it can be claimed as any sort of actual right. Once you're gone, whatever's left behind is for other people to do what they will with. It's not yours any more. If you want something not to exist, destroy it yourself or don't create it yourself in the first place. That is probably the limit of anyone's reasonable right to control something. You can ask, and if someone chooses, maybe they comply, but I think you really should only expect to be able to ask, and live with the eventual no as the answer, or even a yes and then failure to deliver.

(Not speaking as a lawyer. I'm sure there are all kinds of legal things that make wills and contracts into legally more binding documents, but that is artificial legal construct, I'm talking about right & wrong & reason. And besides, if one wants to take the legality seriously, then they obviously had the legal right to do this since they did, and so no problem.)

[matheusmoreira]

If you want something destroyed, you should destroy it yourself while you're still alive.

[pxmpxm]

When you die, you and your fears/desires cease to exist.

[strken]

Honestly, yeah, as far as I'm concerned you've got a right to anything I leave behind. Maybe with some caveats like "...once everyone who knew me is dead" or "...excluding the obvious things like passwords and private keys giving access to other peoples' stuff". Otherwise the world descends into a necrocracy of random rules established by dead people a century ago and upheld in perpetuity.

[SergeAx]

It is not private materials; it is just unfinished work. Lots of unfinished works by different artists found places in museums, where we can better understand their art, their methods and learn from them.

[BeFlatXIII]

I'll be too dead to care either way.

[simpletone]

> Really shocking to see so many comments here arguing we have a right to see/read/hear private, unpublished work that a deceased artist left clear instructions to destroy in the event of their death.

What's so shocking about it? When you are dead, you have no rights or property. It all belongs to whomever you left it to.

If marquez didn't want his work published, he should have destroyed it himself rather than leaving up to someone else. As others have mentioned, kafka did the same thing. Left instructions for his publisher to destroy his works after his death.

> Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

Who cares? If you are so paranoid about it, destroy your personal journal while you are alive. Otherwise, whoever gets it after your death can do whatever they want with it.

[matthewdgreen]

We respect artists enough to give them intellectual property rights that persist even after the death of the artist, but we don't respect the artist's desires about what to do with that property. You can accept or dislike this, but none of it is a natural law: it's a set of somewhat arbitrary legal decisions that we made as a society. We could make different decisions.

[sangnoir]

Dead artists copyrights go to their estate, and the estate may choose to donate the works to the public domain if it so chooses - just as the artist could have when they were alive, since they have the same rights.

[benj111]

Is it about respect?

I thought it was just about money.

Respect could be shown through the production of fan fiction, that isn't compatible with IP.

[simpletone]

> We respect artists enough to give them intellectual property rights that persist even after the death of the artist

It isn't their rights. They are dead. It's a very simple concept. The rights belong to whoever gets the property. Also intellectual property rights isn't about respecting artists. It's about protecting corporate rights since most intellectual property is owned by mega-corporations and not the artists who created them.

> but we don't respect the artist's desires about what to do with that property.

Who is 'we'? The only person who has a say in the matter is whoever gets the property after the artist's death.

> but none of it is a natural law: it's a set of somewhat arbitrary legal decisions that we made as a society.

I know. That's my point. But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the artist is dead and has no rights.

Should the sons have respected marquez's wish? Maybe. But then again, the sons probably knew their father better than you did. And marquez must have left the works to his sons for a reason.

[bryanrasmussen]

>Also intellectual property rights isn't about respecting artists. It's about protecting corporate rights since most intellectual property is owned by mega-corporations and not the artists who created them.

I think that really depends on what theory of copyright you have operating in your society, many European societies have a theory of copyright that is about respecting artist's moral rights to own what they have created.

[simpletone]

> I think that really depends on what theory of copyright you have operating in your society, many European societies have a theory of copyright that is about respecting artist's moral rights to own what they have created.

If that was the case, nobody in europe would be reading much of franz kafka's works nor anne frank's diary.

[bryanrasmussen]

I of course know better than anyone the joy of making a snide rhetorical cut but in this case I was referring to the legal understanding of what the purpose of copyright is in various societies and epigrammatic wit is not enough to obscure a clearly written law.

But good try!

[lukan]

"And marquez must have left the works to his sons for a reason."

As far as I understood it, he was still working on it. And he did not wanted the sketch to be published.

"But then again, the sons probably knew their father better than you did."

Probably. But I would not rule out the possibility, that they have selfish reasons like fame and money.

[userbinator]

Do we get to look at your personal journals, browser history and hidden photo gallery once you kick the bucket?

I hope so. If the radical "privacy and security" advocates truly had their way, the only "history" left from the current era will be "carefully curated" and thus obviously biased. No one should have the "right to be forgotten".

[Log_out_]

The dead are no more. We respect them not for themselves, but for the living relatives. If thee are okay with it, ravage the corpse for all I care. The electrical charged ham, that made it special is just ham now.