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 Really shocking to see so many comments here arguing we have a right to see/read/hear private, unpublished work that a deceased artist left clear instructions to destroy in the event of their death.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