Was it because of the privacy laws that they needed his agreement in the first place?
It seems he contributed, so I assume otherwise.
My understanding is that they didn't need his agreement in the first place, but they voluntarily entered into a contract with Kubrick that gave him the final say on publishing in exchange for him agreeing to be interviewed for the book.
Contracts to personal affairs not real property, I believe would terminate on his death unless deliberately constructed to use e.g. a trust. I repeat, I'm not a lawyer.
Re:The book Kubrick tried to kill
by FrustratedMonky on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @08:37AM
(#40284762)
If they didn't need his agreement, but entered into contract anyway that gave so much power. Why? Seems like we are still missing something here. The article didn't get into the legal side.
I said it in my previous comment and it's also in the article. The "why" is so Kubrick would agree to be interviewed for the book. They gave him publishing veto rights that he otherwise wouldn't have had in exchange for that, which is pretty common and typically well worth it.
> Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it.
Grim reminder to better control privacy while we are still alive.
I mean. Or a relieving reminder that we have nothing to hide but our skeletons and everything comes out in the wash.
Does that mean dead people have no copyright rights as well? Curious what makes image likeness different than any other asset
In some economies, Copyright falls to the heirs or assigned owner for a stated period after death. From the University of Melbourne:
Copyright generally lasts 70 years after the death of the creator or after the first year of publication, depending on the type of material and/or when it was first published: Artistic works, including photographs, Dramatic works.
https://copyright.unimelb.edu.au/shared/basic-principles-of-...
Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it.
Not a lawyer, not in the economies involved in this.
"it depends"