3 ms·

What becomes of the authorship of such a work? They're printing his name on it like he's the author, but they've gone way beyond mere editing. Wouldn't puttin

by LanceH 4y ago

What becomes of the authorship of such a work? They're printing his name on it like he's the author, but they've gone way beyond mere editing. Wouldn't putting his name on it alone be some kind of misrepresentation. I know it works like that with ghost writers, but those are ostensibly approved by the author. There is no such thing here.

zzo38computer 4y ago
I agree. I know that for my own works, I don't care if someone wants to remove attribution, but if someone modifies it, then I do not want them to keep the attribution to me unless they also include a notice about the modification (but no such notice is needed if the attribution is also removed). (However, I am unaware of any licenses that work like this, as far as I know.)
TchoBeer 4y ago
My parents' house has a series of Shakespeare which has the bard's works in modern English. It still says "Shakespeare" across the cover because it is, primarily, the works of Shakespeare. Does a great deal of interpretation not go into these works? Is it therefore dishonest to sell them as Shakespeare?
- oska 4y ago
  Shakespeare predates the modern concept (and cult) of the author. This means that you are comparing two entities that are different in important ways (an Elizabethan playwright and a 20th Century author).
  - LanceH 4y ago
    Shakespeare feels more like it's due to language drift and the changes are necessary to make it accessible. The Roald Dahl fiasco feels more like editors out of 1984 making edits to control thoughts. Or, without reading conspiracy into it, it feels like some current "writers" using someone else's name to push their views on how things should be. Whatever is going on they seem to be changing the story itself. I don't think language drift can be blamed, because it is an active, intentional act to change our language. Or maybe it's just a bubble wrap the children issue. This is why we each choose a book to memorize, just in case.

by LanceH 4y ago

zzo38computer 4y ago

I agree. I know that for my own works, I don't care if someone wants to remove attribution, but if someone modifies it, then I do not want them to keep the attribution to me unless they also include a notice about the modification (but no such notice is needed if the attribution is also removed). (However, I am unaware of any licenses that work like this, as far as I know.)

TchoBeer 4y ago

My parents' house has a series of Shakespeare which has the bard's works in modern English. It still says "Shakespeare" across the cover because it is, primarily, the works of Shakespeare. Does a great deal of interpretation not go into these works? Is it therefore dishonest to sell them as Shakespeare?

oska 4y ago
Shakespeare predates the modern concept (and cult) of the author. This means that you are comparing two entities that are different in important ways (an Elizabethan playwright and a 20th Century author).
- LanceH 4y ago
  Shakespeare feels more like it's due to language drift and the changes are necessary to make it accessible. The Roald Dahl fiasco feels more like editors out of 1984 making edits to control thoughts. Or, without reading conspiracy into it, it feels like some current "writers" using someone else's name to push their views on how things should be. Whatever is going on they seem to be changing the story itself. I don't think language drift can be blamed, because it is an active, intentional act to change our language. Or maybe it's just a bubble wrap the children issue. This is why we each choose a book to memorize, just in case.