Research: Organizations

The International James Joyce Foundation

James Joyce: Copyright, Fair use, and Permissions

Frequently Asked Questions

The International James Joyce Foundation
Special Panel on Intellectual Property
Paul K. Saint-Amour, Chair; Michael Groden, Carol Loeb Shloss, and Robert Spoo

This FAQ is intended to acquaint scholars, performers, and adaptors of James Joyce’s work with the principles of copyright protection and users’ rights and to help them to productive interactions with the Estate of James Joyce in the event they choose to seek permissions to quote from, perform, or adapt Joyce’s work, and also to enable them to know better when copyright permissions are not legally necessary.

While a diligent effort has been made to learn about the Estate’s permissions practices and criteria from informed and voluntary sources, it has not been possible to obtain information concerning all copyright-related interactions that individuals or entities may have had with the Estate over the past several decades. The portion of the FAQ entitled "About the Estate" attempts to be descriptive of, but is in no way legally binding on, the Estate of James Joyce. The FAQ should be read as a set of general recommendations rather than as legal opinion or advice. The authors, the International James Joyce Foundation, its Board of Directors, the James Joyce Quarterly, and the University of Tulsa are not to be held legally responsible for actions undertaken by individuals, groups, companies, or institutions on the basis of the information or opinions contained in this FAQ. Because issues of international copyright law are notoriously complex and often unclear, we invite comments and corrections concerning the information offered below.

Note: details about copyright and fair use/fair dealing differ from country to country and are not generalizable from one country to another. Be sure that you are reading the section of the guidelines for a topic that is appropriate to the country or countries relevant to you.

About the Law

Q: Which of Joyce's works are in the public domain under which copyright regimes?

U.S.: material published in the U.S. before 1923 (U.S. first editions of Chamber Music, Dubliners, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and Exiles; also, the episodes of Ulysses as published in the Little Review).

In addition, works published prior to 1923 outside of the U.S., and bearing a copyright notice, are now in the public domain in the U.S. For that reason, and for additional reasons connected with U.S. copyright law as it existed in 1922, the 1922 Paris first edition of Ulysses is arguably in the public domain in the U.S.—see Robert Spoo, "Copyright Protectionism and Its Discontents: The Case of James Joyce’s Ulysses in America," Yale Law Journal, vol. 108 (December 1998), 633-67.

The situation with respect to works published prior to 1923 outside of the U.S. without a copyright notice is more complex. According to most commentators and in light of a recent legislative change to U.S. copyright law, these works are most likely also in the public domain in the U.S. Unfortunately, judicial decisions have not yet dealt with the legislative change in this particular context, and so this cannot be stated with certainty at this point.

E.U.: none of Joyce's works is presently in the public domain. Possible exceptions are indicated below.

Canada and Australia: all editions of Joyce's works published during his lifetime are in the public domain.

Q: According to present copyright terms, when will Joyce's still-copyrighted published works enter the public domain under various copyright regimes?

U.S.

For works published between 1923 and the end of 1977, 95 years after the year of first publication (provided that for editions published in the U.S., the work was published with a copyright notice and copyright in works published between 1923 and the end of 1963 was renewed). The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples:


Works created before 1 January 1978 and published between that date and 31 December 2002 will not enter the U.S. public domain before 1 January 2048. Examples include material by Joyce that was first published in the following texts:


The case of Ulysses: The Corrected Text (1984; 1986) requires special treatment. If this edition was a derivative work made for hire by Hans Walter Gabler for the Estate of James Joyce, the U.S. copyright in the edition would last for 95 years from the year of first publication, or until 1 January 2080. However, with respect to manuscript materials published for the first time in this edition, those materials might be viewed as separately entering the U.S. public domain on 1 January 2048, pursuant to the rule in the preceding paragraph.

E.U. (*)

Generally, for editions published during the author’s lifetime, 70 years after the calendar year of the author’s death. Examples (based upon Joyce’s death in 1941):


U.K. and Republic of Ireland

In the United Kingdom, lifetime-published editions of Joyce’s works were among those public-domain works whose copyrights were "revived" in 1996, pursuant to an E.U. Directive. These "revived" works are subject to special provisions that generally favor the public and aspiring users, and were adopted to mitigate the re-imposition of copyright control on works that had previously been available for common use. The most important of these provisions for most scholars and other users is a "compulsory license" exemption which provides that "any acts restricted by the [revived] copyright shall be treated as licensed by the copyright owner, subject only to the payment of such reasonable royalty or other remuneration as may be agreed or determined in default of agreement by the Copyright Tribunal." SI 1995, No. 3297, § 24(1). Under this provision, any otherwise copyright-restricted use of Joyce’s lifetime-published editions may be undertaken in the U.K. without the Joyce Estate’s permission, as long as (1) advance notice of the intended use is given by the user to the Joyce Estate (three months’ advance notice, but no less, has been deemed sufficient by a British court), and (2) a reasonable royalty or other remuneration is paid to the Estate.

The intended use is treated as licensed under the law as soon as sufficient advance notice has been given; the issue of payment may be dealt with later, if necessary.

If no agreement as to a reasonable royalty or other remuneration can be reached between the user and the copyright holder, the U.K.’s Copyright Tribunal will determine the fee or royalty. There are special provisions explaining how a party may apply to the Tribunal for settlement of any disagreement over a reasonable fee or royalty.

The U.K. compulsory license provision applies only to revived works, not to works whose copyrights were never revived because they had never expired in the U.K. Giacomo Joyce would be an example of a work by Joyce that has enjoyed uninterrupted copyright protection. The compulsory license provision does not apply to Giacomo Joyce. (See below.)

Note that there is no comparable "compulsory license" for use of revived works in the Republic of Ireland.

In the United Kingdom, works published posthumously enjoy a copyright term of 50 years from the year of first publication. This would suggest that the parts of Stephen Hero that were published in 1944 entered the public domain in the U.K. on 1 January 1995 and that the section that was added?for the first time in 1955 (1956 in the U.K.) entered on 1 January 2006 (or on 1 January 2007, if the U.K. publication date applies). The section that was added for the first time in 1963 will likely enter the U.K. public domain on 1 January 2014. It is important to note, with respect to Stephen Hero and other printings of Joyce’s works, that a different copyright term may apply to any forematter or other material created by introducers or editors. Giacomo Joyce (1968) would enter the U.K. public domain on 1 January 2019. Other E.U. countries have different terms, however. The Republic of Ireland, for example, appears to subject both lifetime-published and posthumously published works to a term of author’s life plus 70 years. Under such a provision, Ulysses, Stephen Hero, and Giacomo Joyce would all enter the Irish public domain on 1 January 2012

Canada and Australia

All editions of Joyce’s works published during his lifetime entered the public domain as of the end of 1991.

Generally, Joyce’s posthumously published works entered or will enter the public domain 50 years (Canada) or 70 years (Australia) after the end of the calendar year in which they were first published.

In January 2005, a U.S.–Australia Free Trade Agreement extended certain copyright terms in Australia. This extension did not affect works, such as Joyce’s lifetime-published editions, that had entered the Australian public domain prior to January 2005.

Q: What is the copyright status of currently unpublished letters and manuscripts?

U.S.

Unpublished works are accorded federal copyright protection for a fixed term: the life of the author plus 70 years. In the case of a currently unpublished work created anywhere in the world before 1 January 1978 and not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, the work is protected for the author’s life plus 70 years or until 31 December 2002, whichever is longer. This means that works by Joyce that were not published during his lifetime, and were not published posthumously at any time before 31 December 2002, will enter the public domain in the U.S. on 1 January 2012.

U.K.

Works that were unpublished at the author’s death and remained so until 1 August 1989 are protected by copyright in the U.K. for 50 years from 1 January 1990, or until 31 December 2039, after which they will enter the U.K. public domain.

Canada

The basic rule is that unpublished works are protected for the duration of the author’s life plus 50 years. However, if the author died, as Joyce did, prior to 1949, the copyright in works still unpublished as of 1997 expired at the beginning of 2003.

Australia

It appears that copyright in "undisclosed" literary, dramatic, and musical works can endure perpetually in Australia (though there are provisions that permit the publication of unpublished works found in libraries and archives when the owner of the copyright is not known). A work is "disclosed" if it is published, performed in public, or broadcast, or where records of the work are offered or exposed for sale to the public, whereupon the copyright term is 70 years from the year of public disclosure.

N.B.: it is important to understand, with respect to the countries discussed in this section, that photoreproductions or facsimiles of manuscripts that have been published with the copyright holder’s authorization—such as the James Joyce Archive—are considered to be published, not unpublished, works for copyright purposes. Thus, the copyright terms that govern ordinary posthumously published works, as well as fair use and fair dealing as those doctrines apply to published works, also apply to the Archive and other Estate-approved publications of photoreproduced or facsimile Joyce manuscripts. In sum, the same rules apply to such publications as to other published texts.

Q: What are the legal definitions of fair use (U.S.) and fair dealing (U.K., and the like)?

U.S.

According to section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, "fair use," which limits the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, is defined in the following manner:

N.B.: contrary to one of the more persistent myths about copyright law, fair use cannot be reduced to a certain quantity of words or number of lines; it is, rather, a flexible multi-factor analysis that can be subjective and tends to differ from case to case and court to court. However, some publishers, editors, and organizations have adopted "guidelines" that limit fair use to specific word counts, line counts, or percentages of text, and sometimes insist that fair use does not apply to certain types of scholarly quotation, such as epigraphs. While these house rules may reflect the comfort level of the publisher or editor, they are not necessarily consistent with the scope of fair use as defined by the law.

It is generally understood that parody may be treated as fair-use criticism or comment in the U.S., as long as the parody specifically targets the copyrighted work and does not merely use the work as a springboard for unrelated "satire." (See below.)

Increasingly, the pivotal consideration under U.S. fair use is whether the purpose and character of the use are "transformative," or instead merely "superseding," of the copyrighted work. A transformative use is one that "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message . . . ." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994). In the scholarly context, a transformative use would typically be one that subjects a reasonable amount of discontinuously quoted material to critical commentary and analysis, in contrast to a full page or several pages of uninterrupted quoted material that is not treated to substantial analysis or critical commentary by the quoting scholar.

It is important for the scholarly community to understand that as of 1992, the U.S. Copyright Act was amended so that the privilege of fair use was expressly acknowledged as extending to unpublished as well as published material. (See above.) While it is clear that fair use may apply to unpublished material, it is also the case that U.S. courts have historically been more reluctant to find fair use in the context of unpublished material. The case law is still developing on this point.

Finally, the fact that one has asked for permission to quote and been denied it by the copyright holder does not, at least in the U.S., negate the fair-use privilege if it otherwise applies. Individuals often seek permission, not because they believe that fair use does not apply, but because they wish to avoid litigation or threats of litigation by the copyright holder. Were mere refusal of the copyright holder enough to negate fair use, the law could effectively be overruled by private veto.

U.K.

Fair dealing and related exceptions in the U.K. include the categories of noncommercial research and private study, criticism and review, as well as the reporting of current events or official proceedings. Fair dealing requires that the user give sufficient acknowledgment of the author and title of the quoted work. The exemptions for criticism and review apply to works that have already been "made available" to the public, and so do not generally apply to unpublished works.

From http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-manage/c-useenforce/c-useenforce-use/c-useenforce-use-exception/c-useenforce-use-exception-fairdealing.htm:
A webpage hosted by the Society of Authors http://www.societyofauthors.org/ publications/quick_guide_permissions/ offers the following discussion of U.K. fair dealing:
It should be noted that U.K. fair dealing is less flexible and less broadly construed than the fair-use doctrine in the U.S.; fair dealing tends to be categorically limited to the various express purposes mentioned above.

Republic of Ireland

Fair dealing under Irish law (for research or private study, criticism, or review) is similar in many ways to fair dealing in the U.K. and often draws upon U.K. judicial decisions. In addition to fair dealing, the Irish copyright statute provides: "The copyright in a work which has been lawfully made available to the public is not infringed by the use of quotations or extracts from the work, where such use does not prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright in that work and such use is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement." Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, § 52(4). The full significance and application of this provision remain to be explored.

Irish fair dealing requires sufficient acknowledgment of the author and title of the quoted work.

Canada and Australia

Under Canadian "fair-dealing" provisions, the following uses do not infringe copyright:

—for the purpose of research or private study
—for the purpose of criticism, review, or news reporting, so long as the source and the name of the author are mentioned
—for purposes of instruction to make a manual reproduction of a work onto a display board or to make a copy of a work to be used on an overhead projector
—live, not-for-profit performance of a work by students at an educational institution before an audience consisting primarily of students and instructors.

(for a more detailed treatment, see http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-42/39417.html)

Australia’s fair-dealing provisions are generally similar with respect to research or study, criticism or review, or news reporting.

In Canada, a work’s being unpublished does not automatically disqualify the person who quotes, copies, or publishes it from the fair-dealing defense, but in general the courts have been reluctant to regard the use of unpublished work as fair dealing. In Australia, a specific exemption permits libraries to provide copies of older unpublished works to patrons for purposes of research or study or with a view to publication.

Factors that may be considered in determining fair dealing in Canada and Australia include the purpose and character of the use, the amount of the use, the alternatives to the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, and the effect of the use on that work. As with U.K. fair dealing, fair dealing in Canada and Australia is generally less flexible and broadly construed than the fair-use doctrine in the U.S.; fair dealing in these countries tends to be categorically limited to the purposes set forth above. Both Canadian and Australian fair dealing draws upon British legal doctrine and precedent.

Q: How do I know whether my quotations are within the parameters of fair dealing/fair use?

There are no easy or straightforward answers to this crucial question, as legislation tends to name general categories of permitted use without providing specifics as to proportion, importance, economic impact, etc. In fact, fair-dealing/fair-use guidelines that name specific percentages or page numbers generally have no basis in the law and are often circulated by publishers, editors, or organizations with an interest in a narrow construction of fair dealing/fair use. (See above.)

U.K. law makes clear that unless it is for noncommercial criticism or review purposes, it is an infringement of copyright to quote or copy a substantial part of a work in copyright without permission. However, "substantial part" is left undefined; precedent suggests that both the size and the importance of the quotation in relation to the total work are considerations in determining substantiality.

Q: What do I do if my publisher demands that I secure Estate permission to quote an amount of material that seems to me to fall within fair-use/fair-dealing parameters?

Authors and their estates enjoy rights in works that are in copyright; and performers, adaptors, and scholars have privileges as well when they meet the requirements for fair use or fair dealing or fulfill the criteria for another exemption from copyright. When you publish your work, publishers enter the picture, bringing their own interests and their own perspectives on copyright and permissions matters. We hope that scholarly writers as well as publishers will bring to the transaction a sensible and informed approach to these matters in order to minimize unnecessary problems that you might face, while respecting both your rights and the rights of the subject author or the author’s estate.

We urge publishers not to maintain a blanket policy of requiring all scholarly writers to approach an author or an author’s estate whatever the nature and extent of the writer’s use of the author’s words. If your use of the author’s words seems to go beyond fair use/fair dealing or in some other way rules out the privilege of fair use/fair dealing, the publisher may be justified in requiring you to approach the author or estate for permission. But if you reasonably can claim that your use of the author’s words meets fair-use/fair-dealing criteria, the publisher should not force you into the possibly protracted, expensive, or even fruitless negotiations that might result from contact with an author or an estate.

In general, it is to be hoped that publishers will, on behalf of their authors, exercise fair use and fair dealing up to the reasonable limits of those doctrines, rather than restrict quotation to the actual or perceived expectations of copyright holders.

As a scholarly writer, you have, on your side, an obligation to know what the fair-use/fair-dealing criteria are for the country or countries that are relevant to your publication, so that you can back up your claim to be exercising fair use/fair dealing if you take that position. And, of course, you should ensure as far as possible that your quotations do indeed meet those criteria.

Be aware that different publishers can have widely varying policies when it comes to approaching literary estates for copyright permissions. These differences can pertain to the size of quotations for which permission is deemed necessary as well as to the point during the review/publication process by which permissions need to have been secured. It is worth acquainting yourself carefully with the permissions policies of your publisher before you make contact with the Estate. It would also be in your best interest, early in your communication with a publisher, to ask if it has a general policy on fair use/fair dealing and on approaching an author or estate and for any details of that policy.

Q: Do I need to seek permission from the library or archive that owns a Joyce manuscript or letter if I want to quote from the manuscript or letter?

Some libraries and archives expect scholars to seek their permission before quoting from material held in their collections, particularly where the material is unpublished and the scholar gained access to it by visiting the library or archive. This expectation is often contained in an agreement that the scholar is asked to sign before being permitted to view the material on site or before receiving a photocopy of the material from the library or archive. It is important to bear in mind that this expectation typically reflects the library or archive’s desire to be made aware of intended uses of its material and to be cited as the owner of the physical document, and is rarely (and in the case of James Joyce material, never) based in any copyright ownership that the library or archive may claim. Therefore, any permission obtained from the library or archive to use its material will usually not substitute for permission from the copyright holder, if such permission is necessary.

Q: Do I need to seek permissions from Joyce’s publishers when I quote from his work?

No. It does not appear that any of Joyce’s copyrights are currently owned by publishers, and the Estate has consistently taken the position that copyright permissions should be directed to it. Thus, if you go to the Estate for permission, you need not get additional permissions from publishers. Some literary estates have delegated the handling of permissions to their publishers, who act as agents of the estate in question. This is evidently not the case with the Estate of James Joyce, however.

Q: What is droit moral (moral right)? Where and for how long is it applicable?

Droit moral traditionally is part of Continental (i.e., not Anglo-American) conceptions of authorial rights and descends from natural law regimes such as the French civil code. It confers on authors a semi-sacred reputational right that in some countries coexists with and even survives the temporary monopoly created by copyright. The primary moral rights are the right of integrity (i.e., the right against distortion or mutilation of the work) and the right of attribution or paternity (the right to be named as the author of the work and not to be named as the author of a work one did not create). Because droit moral protects against distortions and misattributions of an author’s work, it is not inconsistent with the privileges of fair use and fair dealing in the ordinary context of accurate, attributed quotations.

In France, where moral rights are perpetual, a parody that intends to harm the original author’s work might be held to violate droit moral even if it is permissible according to fair-dealing provisions for parody and pastiche. In Spain, droit moral empowers the author to restrain "any distortion, modification, or alteration.that is likely to prejudice his legitimate interests or threaten his reputation." In both his 1927 protest against Samuel Roth’s Ulysses piracies and his 1937 address to the PEN Club, Joyce invoked "le Droit Moral des Écrivains" to decry the appropriation and mutilation of authors’ property.

There is no statutory or common-law droit moral for writers in the U.S., although federal and state statutes there protect creators’ moral rights in certain works of visual art. Canadian law (since at least 1988) and Australian law (since 2000) recognize authors’ moral rights of integrity and attribution; these rights subsist for the same term as a work’s copyright. In the U.K., the right to be identified as the author of a work, the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work, and the right not to have the work falsely attributed have been statutorily protected since at least 1988; these rights also last for the same term as the work’s copyright. Since 2001, the Republic of Ireland has protected authors’ moral rights by statute, but these rights do not apply there to authors who died as long ago as James Joyce.

Q: If I plan to quote from texts in the public domain in the U.S. (e.g., the Huebsch edition of Dubliners) and am publishing with a U.S.-based press, do I need to secure the Estate’s permission to quote from those texts if the book is to be available overseas?

If your publisher plans to distribute copies of your book in non-U.S. countries where the copyright in Dubliners remains in force, the Estate’s permission might be necessary, unless your quotations are privileged by fair dealing or another exemption.

Q: If I plan to hold a private reading of Joyce’s work, should I seek Estate permission?

U.S.

Private performances—for example, to a family circle (including single persons) and its social acquaintances or to a small group not amounting to a "substantial number of persons"—are never infringing and do not require permission.

Q: If I plan to hold a public reading of Joyce’s work, should I seek Estate permission?

U.S.

Performances or displays of works or portions of works by students or instructors in nonprofit educational settings are exempt in the context of (1) face-to-face classroom teaching or (2) certain course-related digital transmissions.

Outside of the educational context, live, non-profit public performances of copyrighted nondramatic literary works or nondramatic musical works are permitted by U.S. law and do not require permission. Note that such performances must not be of dramatic literary works (such as Exiles) or dramatic musical works (such as George Antheil’s operatic treatment of "Cyclops"); must not be sponsored for a commercial purpose; must not provide compensation to participants; must not involve a direct or indirect charge of admission; and must not be broadcast over television or radio or "streamed" over the Internet.

A similar exemption applies to live, public performances of copyrighted nondramatic literary works or nondramatic musical works where admission is charged, so long as the proceeds, less the reasonable costs of producing the performance, are used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain. Note that the other requirements apply here just as they do in the case of a public performance for which no admission is charged, namely that the performance be live (not broadcast or "streamed"), that it not compensate the participants, and that it not be for directly or indirectly commercial purposes.

If admission is charged for the second type of non-profit public performance, the copyright owner may veto the performance by serving a signed, written notice of objection "at least seven days before the date of the performance," stating "the reasons for the objection" and complying with other requirements established by the Register of Copyrights. (The first type of non-profit public performance discussed above—the one not involving an admission charge—cannot be vetoed by the copyright owner.)

Note that for either type of non-profit performance, there is no limitation in the U.S. upon the amount of copyrighted material that may be performed. For example, if the above requirements are otherwise satisfied, an individual or group could publicly perform the entirety of a copyrighted edition of Ulysses or Finnegans Wake, and could incorporate into the performance all of a copyrighted nondramatic Irish song. Comparable public performance exemptions in non-U.S. countries (discussed below) are typically not so expansive.

U.K.

Performances of copyrighted literary, dramatic, musical, and certain other works in an educational institution for educational purposes do not infringe copyright, so long as the audience consists of teachers, students, and others directly connected with the institution (parents are excluded from this group).

Outside of the educational context, the U.K. copyright law also contains an exemption for public performances of the type Joyceans often engage in: "The reading or recitation in public by one person of a reasonable extract from a published literary or dramatic work does not infringe copyright in the work if it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement." CDPA § 59(1). This exemption would appear to apply to a reading or recitation from any copyrighted literary work (such as Ulysses) or dramatic work (such as Exiles), so long as the extract is "reasonable" in length and the authorship is "sufficient[ly] acknowledge[d]." "Sufficient acknowledgement" means "an acknowledgement identifying the work in question by its title or other description, and identifying the author." Id. § 178.

Republic of Ireland

Ireland has a provision for educational performances that is similar to the U.K.’s. (See above.)

Like U.K. law, the copyright law of the Republic of Ireland has carved out an exemption for certain public performances outside of the educational context: "The reading or recitation in public by one person of any reasonable extract from a literary or dramatic work which has been lawfully made available to the public, where accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, shall not infringe the copyright in the work." CRRA § 90(1). Like its U.K. counterpart, this exemption appears to apply to a reading or recitation from any published, copyrighted literary work (such as Ulysses) or dramatic work (such as Exiles), as long as the extract is "reasonable" in length and the authorship is "sufficient[ly] acknowledge[d]." "Sufficient acknowledgement" means "an acknowledgement identifying the work concerned by its title or other description and identifying the author." Id. § 51(3); see also id. § 2.

Canada

It is not an infringement of copyright for students to mount a live, nonprofit performance of a copyrighted work at an educational institution before an audience consisting primarily of students and instructors. Note: Canadian law does not exclude "dramatic literary works" from this provision.

Outside of the educational context, the Canadian Copyright Act also contains an exemption for certain public performances of published, copyrighted works: "It is not an infringement of copyright.for any person to read or recite in public a reasonable extract from a published work." R.S. 1985, c. C-42, § 32.2(1)(d).

Australia

A teacher’s performance of a literary, dramatic, or musical work, or the playing of a record or showing of a film, in the course of educational instruction at a nonprofit place of education, is not an infringement of copyright.

Outside of the educational context, Australian copyright law contains a specific exemption for certain public performances of specified published, copyrighted works: "The reading or recitation in public.of an extract of reasonable length from a published literary or dramatic work, or from an adaptation of such a work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made." Copyright Act of 1968, § 45. "Sufficient acknowledgement" means "an acknowledgement identifying the work by its title or other description and.also identifying the author." Id. § 10.

Q: If I plan to quote from Joyce’s work in an original musical composition, should I seek Estate permission?

So long as the quotation is from a work in the public domain or is privileged by fair use, fair dealing, or another exemption, permission would not be required. If the work is not in the public domain and if the quotation is extensive or of a nature that would render fair use/fair dealing inapplicable, then permission should be sought.

Q: If I plan to create a visual or sculptural artwork using James Joyce’s image, should I seek Estate permission?

U.S.

Courts have held that the "right to publicity" (a rather irregular body of state-based law that bars people from "appropriat[ing] the commercial value of a person’s identity by using without consent the person’s name, likeness, or other indicia of identity for purposes of trade") may not prohibit movies, novels, plays, or songs that use people’s names or likeness. However, statuettes, prints, and T-shirts that reproduce a person’s likeness for a commercial purpose may be found by some state courts to violate the right to publicity. Some courts tend to look more permissively on "transformative" uses of a person’s likeness (e.g., works that creatively and expressively alter a likeness or use it as only one among many raw materials, rather than a single realistic or representational image or likeness). And in some states the likeness of a deceased person is more broadly usable than that of a living person. The basic rule of thumb: the more transformative and the less commercial the use, the less likely permission is necessary.

U.K.

Although living celebrities have employed U.K. privacy law to restrict some uses of their likenesses, there is in the U.K. no body of law equivalent to "rights of publicity" or "personality rights" in the U.S.

Canada

The Canadian tort of "appropriation of personality" is less developed than the U.S. right to publicity law but more developed than U.K. protections. A deceased celebrity’s estate may bring an action under this law for uses of that celebrity’s likeness, but the protections appear to be limited to purely and explicitly commercial uses (e.g., celebrity endorsement of a product).

Q: If I plan to create a parody of Joyce’s work, should I seek the Estate’s permission before publishing it?

U.S.

Although parody is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. fair-use provision, case law has established that copying aspects of a work for the purpose of parody can be considered a fair use under certain conditions. The chief condition is that the work copied or imitated also be the specific object of the parody. For example, one might not be able lawfully to imitate the melody, chord structure, and lyrics of a Britney Spears song in order to make a trenchant critique of American foreign policy; a court might consider this to be "satire" and grant no fair-use privilege for it. Ms. Spears’s song itself would have to be the target of a parody in order for the imitation to be eligible for the fair-use privilege. And so with a work by Joyce.

U.K.

A 2001 E.U. directive permits member states to allow exceptions and limitations to copyright in the cases of caricature, parody, or pastiche. To date, however, the U.K. has not formalized any fair-dealing provisions for parody, and U.K. case law provides no consistent rule of thumb for determining at what point a parody’s borrowing from a copyrighted work is substantial enough to be considered an infringement.

Canada

Unlike U.S. courts’ treatment of fair-use parody, Canadian courts tend not to regard parody as a viable form of fair dealing and therefore as a possible exemption from infringement.

Q: If I plan to reproduce a photograph of James Joyce or a member of his family in my scholarly book or article, should I seek the Estate’s permission before doing so?

In most cases, no. Copyright law with respect to photographs has historically been somewhat complicated, but in most countries, the copyright in a photograph, if any, is initially owned by the "author" of the photograph—typically, the person who snapped the picture. This means that, as a general rule, if James Joyce is the subject of a photograph, he could not have authored it.

An older photograph whose author is unknown—and this is the case with many older photos, especially candid ones—may generally be reproduced without permission, especially if it seems likely that the photo is old enough to be in the public domain. Reproducing a photograph whose author is unknown opens up the possibility—perhaps a remote one, though not out of the question—that the author or his or her descendants might come forward to object. In this situation, your having previously made a good-faith effort to locate the author might help your case, but it would not be a complete defense to an infringement claim.

By contrast, where the photographer’s identity is known—as in the famous images of Joyce created by Man Ray, Gisèle Freund, and Berenice Abbott—efforts should be made to obtain permission from the photographer or his or her estate or representatives, unless the photograph is in the public domain or reproducing it would be privileged by fair use/fair dealing or another exemption.

The application of fair use/fair dealing to copyrighted photographs is a subject that is still evolving in the courts. While fair use/fair dealing is never guaranteed, a rule of thumb would be to reproduce a copyrighted photograph without permission only when you are subjecting that image to specific commentary or analysis. At a minimum, such a practice would make your use of the image more likely to qualify as a "transformative" fair use within the U.S.

Duration of copyrights in photographs often follows the usual rules of copyright duration, as discussed above. In some countries, however, the duration of photographic copyrights is more complicated. In Germany and Spain, for example, a distinction is drawn between photographic "works" (satisfying criteria of authorial creativity) and "simple" photographs not constituting "works." These categories are assigned different copyright terms. Many countries do not observe such a distinction, however.

About the Estate

Q: If I have decided to request permission to quote from Joyce’s work, from whom should I request that permission?

Mr. Stephen James Joyce
Trustee, Estate of James Joyce
5, ruelle du Temple
F-17630 La Flotte-en-Ré
France

Mr. Seán Sweeney
Trustee, Estate of James Joyce
Raith House
Newport
County Mayo
Ireland

Q: Should I write to Stephen James Joyce, to Seán Sweeney, or to both?

It appears that the best practice, and the one most likely to speed the process, is to address the same request to both Mr. Joyce and Mr. Sweeney. As of this writing, both Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Joyce appear to be Trustees of the Estate.

Q: Does the Estate charge a standard fee for reprinting or quoting from Joyce texts?

At times the Estate has invoked the following rates as standard, adding that it charges half the normal permissions fee for academic books. In practice, however, there appears to be wide variation, with occasional downward and more frequent upward adjustments.

10p per word (U.K.)
25¢ per word (U.S.)
£75 per 1,000 words (Society of Authors suggested minimum)
£7,000 sterling (U.K.) for substantial inclusion of Joyce’s works in an anthology

If the foregoing is not, or is no longer, the position or policy of the Estate, the International James Joyce Foundation welcomes corrections from the Estate or others.

Q: Are the royalty fees charged by the Estate negotiable?

In several cases, the Estate has been willing to decrease its initial fee requests, particularly for scholarly quotation. At other times, however, the Estate has maintained a "take it or leave it" stance with respect to stated fees.

Q: What are the Estate’s criteria for granting or refusing permissions?

In public statements, Stephen James Joyce or Seán Sweeney has made clear that the Estate’s priorities are to defend the letter, spirit, and integrity of James Joyce’s work; to encourage or permit interpretations and adaptations that conform to Joyce’s intentions; and to defend the privacy of the Joyce family. The concern for defending the family’s privacy has made the Estate reluctant, in many cases, to permit quotation from letters, particularly unpublished letters. Other criteria cited by the Estate from time to time as playing a role in its decisions include:

—whether the individual seeking permission has made past statements or gestures perceived to be contrary to the interests of the Estate
—whether the person seeking permission is associated with individuals, projects, or institutions the Estate feels has acted contrary to its interests
—whether a permission-seeker is seen to be making the request late in a project’s development, in the spirit of an afterthought
—whether the Estate "likes" an adaptor’s or scholar’s use of Joyce’s work.

Q: Given these criteria, what is the best manner in which to approach the Estate about a permissions request?

Timing. There is, unfortunately, no simple answer to the question of how to time a request. On the one hand, approaching the Estate early in the development of a project prevents the applicant’s seeming to have treated permission as an afterthought or foregone conclusion. On the other hand, early negotiations with the Estate have in some cases ended up being protracted and complicated, with a written agreement repeatedly deferred and/or accompanied by conditions that have proven difficult for the applicant to accept.

Tone. Permissions-seekers who have met with the most success in the past have been polite but not fawning, respectful but not timorous, direct but not blunt. In formulating your request, you should consider positioning your project in respect to the Estate’s evident criteria—both explicit and implicit—as discussed above. Be advised, however, that none of these considerations guarantees a productive outcome.

Accuracy. The Estate appears to be keenly interested that Joyce’s works, including the works’ titles, be quoted accurately. If you reproduce the passage(s) you wish to quote in correspondence with the Estate—and in some cases the Estate has looked favorably on such highly specific requests—take care to quote passages and work titles (e.g., Pomes Penyeach, Finnegans Wake) accurately.

Q: From which editions of Joyce’s works has the Estate historically requested scholars and adaptors to quote?

Dubliners: the corrected text, ed. Robert Scholes in consultation with Richard Ellmann. London: Jonathan Cape, 1967. (This edition was also published in New York by Viking Press, 1967.)

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: the definitive text, corrected from the Dublin holograph by Chester G. Anderson and edited by Richard Ellmann. New York: Viking Press, 1964.

Ulysses: the first edition, Paris: Shakespeare and Company, 1922, plus the list of errata dated October 1922; alternatively, a facsimile of the first edition (e.g., Oxford University Press’s World’s Classics series, a facsimile of first edition copy 785); the Folio Society 1998 reproduction of the 1926 edition; or the 1932 Odyssey Press edition.

Finnegans Wake: a post-World War II edition incorporating corrections made by Joyce and Paul Léon during summer 1940 in Saint-Gérand-le-Puy.

Scholarly Work on Joyce's Copyrights and the Joyce Estate

Arnold, Bruce. The Scandal of "Ulysses": The Life and Afterlife of a Twentieth-Century Masterpiece. Revised Edition. Dublin: The Liffey Press, 2004.

DiPietro, Cary. "Hamlet, Shakespeare and Stephen Joyce." In Shakespeare and Modernism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.

Rathjen, Friedhelm. "Der Enkel: Stephen Joyce: Best of Worst 6." In Der Ernst des Lesens: Beinharte Forschung zu Arno Schmidt & Consorten. Scheeßel: Edition ReJoyce, 2006. Repr. irland journal (2003).

Rimmer, Matthew. "Bloomsday: Copyright Estates and Cultural Festivals." SCRIPT-ed, 2. iii (September 2005). http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/script-ed/vol2-3/bloomsday.asp.

Rose, Danis. "Introduction." Joyce, James. "Ulysses": A New Reader’s Edition. Ed. Danis Rose. Mousehole, Cornwall: Houyhnhnm Press Ltd., 2004.

Saint-Amour, Paul K. The Copywrights: Intellectual Property and the Literary Imagination. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.

Shloss, Carol Loeb. "Joyce’s Will." Novel, 21 (Autumn 1995), 114-27.

• "Privacy and Piracy in the Joyce Trade: James Joyce and Le Droit Moral." James Joyce Quarterly, 37.3-4 (Spring-Summer 2000), 447-57.

Spoo, Robert. "Copyright Protectionism and Its Discontents: The Case of James Joyce’s Ulysses in America." The Yale Law Journal, 108.3 (December 1998), 633-67.

• "Copyright and the Ends of Ownership: The Case for a Public-Domain Ulysses in America." Joyce Studies Annual 1999, 5-62.


• "Injuries, Remedies, Moral Rights, and the Public Domain." James Joyce Quarterly, 37.3-4 (Spring-Summer 2000), 333-51.


• "Deluxe Editions and the Copyright Monopoly." James Joyce Literary Supplement, 14 (Spring 2000), 7-8. Review essay on James Joyce, Ulysses (London: Folio Society, 1998).


• "A Rose Is a Rose Is a Roth: New/Old Theories of Legal Liability in the Joyce World." James Joyce Literary Supplement, 16 (Spring 2002), 3-5.


• Three Myths for Aging Copyrights: "Tithonus," "Dorian Gray," "Ulysses." National Library of Ireland Monograph Series, Joyce Studies 2004, No. 6 (2004).


• "Ulysses, Bloomsday, and Copyright." In "yes I said yes I will Yes": A Celebration of James Joyce, "Ulysses," and 100 Years of Bloomsday. Ed. Nola Tully. New York: Vintage Books, 2004.


• "The Weight of Intangible Property and its Laws." James Joyce Literary Supplement, 19 (Spring 2005). Review essay on Paul K. Saint-Amour, The Copywrights: Intellectual Property and the Literary Imagination (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2003).


• "Why Public Performances of James Joyce’s Works Are Not a Thing of the Past." James Joyce Quarterly, 41.4 (Summer 2004), 619-25.


• "Copyright and ‘Design-Around’ Scholarship." James Joyce Quarterly, 44.3 (Spring 2007), 563-85. Review essay discussing issues of modernist copyrights and impact on scholarship.

Judicial Opinions and Related Materials Involving the Joyce Estate

Sweeney v. Nat’l Univ. of Ireland Cork, Trading as Cork University Press, No. 10497P/2000 (Irish High Court, 9 October 2000). (Litigation involving the planned inclusion of Joyce extracts in a Cork UP anthology, Irish Writing in the Twentieth Century: A Reader. Court grants injunction in favor of the Joyce Estate.)

Sweeney v. Macmillan Publishers Ltd., Case No. CH 1997 S 3257, [2001] EWHC Ch B66 (Chancery, 22 November 2001). (Litigation involving Danis Rose’s "Reader’s Edition" of Ulysses. Court grants injunction in favor of the Joyce Estate with respect to one of its copyright claims, but rejects the Estate’s "passing off" claim and finds that Rose’s use of lifetime-published material by Joyce is protected by the U.K. compulsory license for revived-copyright works.) http://www2.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2001/460.html.

Shloss v. Sweeney, No. C 06-03718 JW, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. 515 F. Supp. 2d 1068. 9 February 2007. (Court denies the Joyce Estate’s Motion to Dismiss and most of its Motion to Strike, and discusses copyright misuse and other important issues.)

Settlement Agreement, 2007. (Non-confidential agreement of 16 March 2007 between the Estate of James Joyce and Carol Loeb Shloss related to her use of copyrighted materials omitted from her biography of Lucia Joyce.) http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Shloss+Settlement+Agree-ment.pdf.

Shloss v. Sweeney, No. C 06-03718 JW. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. 515 F. Supp. 2d 1083. 30 May 2007. (Court deems Carol Loeb Shloss the "prevailing party" on the basis of the settlement and requires the Joyce Estate to pay Shloss’s reasonable attorneys’ fees.)

The Joyce Estate in the Press

JJQ 22.2 (Winter 1985), 243. Letter from Stephen James Joyce re: French productions of Exiles.

JJQ 24.2 (Winter 1987), 211-14. Stephen James Joyce’s remarks at the Tenth JJ Symposium, Copenhagen.

JJQ 24.2 (Winter 1987), 238-39. Letter from Stephen James Joyce re: JJ’s death mask.

"Letters burnt in Joyce family row." TLS (12 June 1988).

James, Caryn. "The Fate of Joyce Family Letters Causes Angry Literary Debate." Times (New York) (15 August 1988).

JJQ 26.3 (Spring 1989), 461-64. Letter from Stephen James Joyce re: destroying Lucia and Beckett letters.

Smith, Janna Malamud. "Where Does a Writer’s Family Draw the Line?" Times (New York) (5 November 1989): Book Review.

Joyce, Stephen James. "The Private Lives of Writers." Times (New York) (31 December 1989).

(1989-1990) Kate Bush on "The Sensual World": http://gaffa.org/cloud/music/ the_sensual_world.html

"Joyce’s Grandson Says Scholars Invading Family Privacy." Athens News (8-9 July 1990).

Joyce, Stephen James. "Sterile debate on ‘Ulysses.’" Independent (London) (15 July 1990): Letters.

Clarity, James F. "James Joyce Papers Go on Public Display for the First Time." Times (New York) (7 April 1992).

JJQ 29.3 (Spring 1992), 715, 715-16. Letters from Seán Sweeney re: copyright; Stephen James Joyce re: poems and Sur Joyce.

Joyce, Stephen James, and Seán Sweeney. "Re-publishing James Joyce." TLS (19 February 1993).

JJQ 30.2 (Winter 1993), 345-49. Letter from Stephen James Joyce and statement by him re: 1992 NLI Léon papers.

Hellen, Nicholas and John Davison. "Millions at stake in copyright row over top authors." Sunday Times (London) (25 September

1994). Bédarida, Catherine. "Stephen James Joyce, petit-fils de l’écrivain: ‘Il existe une véritable industrie James Joyce’" ["Stephen James Joyce, grandson of the writer: ‘A veritable James Joyce industry exists’"]. Le Monde (22 March 1995).

Joyce, Stephen James. "The 'Reader's Edition' of 'Ulysses.'" TLS (27 June 1997).

Turkish Daily News (5 August 1997). Article on the Turkish translation of Ulysses.

Joyce, Stephen James. "Preface" to Folio Society facsimile of 1926 Ulysses (1998).

1999? Notice written and signed by Stephen James Joyce and Seán Sweeney re: "abuse" of death mask.

Joyce, Stephen James. "Editions of Ulysses." TLS (5 November 1999).

Carty, Peter. "Never on a Bloomsday." Independent (London) (12 January 2000).

Thorpe, Vanessa. "Family Upset at ‘Joyce the foul-mouth.’" Guardian (7 May 2000).

Ruane, Medb. "The war of words over Joyce’s literary legacy." Irish Times (10 June 2000).

Joyce, Stephen James. "Home Is Where the Art Is." International Herald Tribune (27 June 2000).

Thorpe, Vanessa. "Joyce bans Molly’s musical climax." Observer (London) (30 July 2000).

Bruce, Iain S. "Joyce grandson fury over Fringe musical filth." Sunday Herald (30 July 2000).

Adams, Lucy. "Joyce grandson in battle to ban Ulysses in musical." Sunday Times (Dublin ed.) (30 July 2000).

"Hearing on Joyce excerpts resumes." Irish Times (3 October 2000).

"The Copyright Squabble that Could Cost £92,000." Books Ireland (November 2000).

Killeen, Terence. "Copyright row over Joyce experts." Irish Times (1 February 2001).

"Why Joyce Is Out of the Big Picture." Sunday Independent (18 February 2001).

Doran, Amanda-Jane. "Joyce Estate, Irish UP Battle Over Permissions Fees." Publishers Weekly (23 April 2001).

Burns, John. "Estate wins damages for Ulysses internet broadcast." Sunday Times (Dublin ed.) (15 July 2001).

Burns, John. "Joyce grandson challenges sale." Sunday Times (Dublin ed.) (9 February 2003).

"The Joycean Wars." Sunday Tribune (20 July 2003).

O’Connell, Jennifer. "Joyce died leaving estate worth just €10." Sunday Business Post (Dublin) (5 October 2003).

O’Connell, Jennifer. "Joyce’s will cleared: family is €10 better off." Sunday Business Post (Dublin) (5 October 2003).

Smith, Dinitia. "A Portrait of the Artist’s Troubled Daughter." Times (New York) (22 November 2003).

Acocella, Joan. "A Fire in the Brain: The Difficulties of Being James Joyce’s Daughter." The New Yorker (8 December 2003). http://www.newyorker.com/archive/ 2003/12/08/031208crbo_books.

"Joyce-Stadt Zürich!: Joyce-Enkel wehrt sich gegen den Rummel zum 100. Bloomsday in Irland" ["Joyce-City of Zürich!: Joyce Grandson Rails Against Shindig for 100th Bloomsday in Ireland"]. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (3 February 2004).

Smyth, Jamie. "Joyce estate warns festival over copyright issues." Irish Times (9 February 2004).

"An Irishman’s Diary." Irish Times (11 February 2004).

"Profile: Stephen Joyce: Protective grandson who refuses to ReJoyce." Sunday Times (Dublin ed.) (15 February 2004).

Byrne, Nicola. "Joyce grandson threatens to ban readings at festival." Scotsman (15 February 2004).

Killeen, Terence. "A Light Eclipsed: The Claims a New Biography Makes for Joyce’s Daughter Are Too Great." Irish Times (28 February 2004), 59.

Pepper, Tara. "Portrait of the Daughter: Two works seek to reclaim the legacy of Lucia Joyce." Newsweek International Edition (MSNBC.com) (8 March 2004). .

"Irish emergency law re: NLI exhibit." Irish Times (27 May 2004).

Collins, Geraldine. "Dail agrees amendment on Joyce work copyright." Irish Independent (3 June 2004).

"James Joyce and Irish Copyright Legislation." A&L Goodbody Legal News & Publications (3 June 2004).

"Joyce estate loses wine battle." Sunday Times (Dublin ed.) (6 June 2004).

"No, he says, No No No; Bloom buffs take drastic and imaginative measures to circumvent litigious Joyce Estate." Sunday Tribune (6 June 2004).

"James Joyce and the Latest Copyright Twist." Irish Independent (12 June 2004).

Connolly, Niamh. "Joyce vs. Joyce." Sunday Business Post (Dublin) (13 June 2004).

"Literary Copyright & The Estate of James Joyce." Ramona Koval interviews Damien Carrick, Francis Devlin-Glass, Lyn Gallacher, Brendan Kilty, Carol Shloss, and others on "Books and Writing," Australian Radio National (12 September 2004). Transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/bwriting/stories/s1196227.htm.

"US Academic Sues Joyce Estate Over Refusal to Allow Use of Material on Website." Irish Times (14 June 2006), 15.

Gumbel, Andrew. "Joyce’s ‘repressive, secretic, obstructive’ Grandson to Be Sued: Ulysses Author’s Descendant Accused of Violating Copyright Law in Restricting Academics’ Access to Letters and Documents." Independent (London) (18 June 2006), 41.

Gumbel, Andrew. "US Scholar in Copyright Suit Against James Joyce’s Grandson." Sunday Tribune (Ireland) (18 June 2006), N07.

Max, D. T. "The Injustice Collector: Is James Joyce’s Grandson Suppressing Scholarship?" New Yorker 82, xviii (19 June 2006): 34-43. .

Foster, Andrea L. "Lawsuit Over James Joyce Web Site May Clarify Copyright’s Fair-Use Exemption." Chronicle of Higher Education 52, xlii (23 June 2006), A39.

Wyndham, Susan. "Undercover." Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) (24 June 2006), 30.

Naughton, John. "Joyce and Copyright: A Nightmare from Which Publishers Are Now Trying to Awake." Observer (London) (25 June 2006). Business, 10.

Neuman, Clayton. "The People vs. James Joyce." Time Magazine (26 June 2006), 18.

Killeen, Terence. "A Tangled Web of Joyceans." The Irish Times (3 July 2006), 12.

"English Professor Raises Copyright Misuse in Complaint Against Estate of James Joyce." Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert, No. 1405 (6 July 2006). http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2006/07/06.asp.

Ross, Val. "The Bloomsday Group’s Battle: James Joyce’s Grandson Has Intimidated Legions of Scholars in Copyright Skirmishes." Globe and Mail (8 July 2006), Weekend Review 1, 9. (Also titled "At War with the Joyce Estate.") http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060708.JOYCE08/TPStory/Entertainment.

Butler, Susan. "James Joyce Suit May Change Copyright Law." Billboard 118, xxviii (15 July 2006), 13.

Krieger, Lisa M. "Copyright Suit Challenges What’s Public vs. Private." San Jose Mercury News (31 July 2006).

Watts, James D., Jr. "Bludgeoning Scholars into Silence." Tulsa World (Oklahoma) (6 August 2006), Books, H7.

"Copyright Abuse." The Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA) (7 August 2006), Editorial, B06.

Malvern, Jack. "Show Goes On as Quirk of Law Foils Joyce’s Grandson." Times (London) (11 August 2006), Home News, 29.

Bringardner, John. "Portrait of the Scholar as an IP Ace." IP Law & Business (October 2006), 64-66.

Oberthur, Anna. "James Joyce Inspires Literary and Legal Career." San Francisco Daily Journal (1 November 2006), 1, 6.

Bringardner, John. "Joycean Law." IP Magazine (Winter 2007), 12-13.

"Deal Lets Joyce Scholar Publish." Daily Journal (23 March 2007).

"Scholar Who Sued James Joyce’s Estate Wins Right to Quote Works in Settlement Agreement." International Herald Tribune (24 March 2007).

Leff, Lisa. "Scholar Wins Right to Quote James Joyce." Forbes; Newsday (24 March 2007).

Simmons, Leslie. "James Joyce Copyright Case Settled in California." Washington Post; Reuters/Hollywood Reporter (24 March 2007).

"Joyce Copyright Fight Settled." Calgary Sun (Alberta) (25 March 2007), 46.

"Stanford Wins Rare Copyright Concession from Joyce Estate." San Jose Mercury News (25 March 2007).

"Joyce Letters Court Case Settled." BBC News (25 March 2007).

"Scholar Who Sued James Joyce’s Estate Wins Right to Quote Works in Settlement Agreement." Boston Herald (25 March 2007).

"Scholar, Author’s Estate Put ‘Wake’ Lawsuit to Rest." Desert Morning News (Salt Lake City) (25 March 2007).

"Epic Battle Ends Between James Joyce Estate, Professor." Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (25 March 2007).

"James Joyce Scholar, in Deal with Author’s Estate, Wins Right to Use Copyrighted Works." Chronicle of Higher Education (26 March 2007).

Olson, David. Interviewed on Canadian Broadcasting Company Radio’s "As It Happens" (26 March 2007).

"The Mystery of the Muse: Anna Livia Plurabelle Uncovered." Independent (London) (27 March 2007), 16; The Belfast Telegraph, 15.

Kelly, John. "Joyce Book Battle." Sunday Mirror (1 April 2007), 34.

Cavanaugh, Tim. "Portrait of the Old Man as a Copyright Miser." Los Angeles Times, Opinion Daily, 5 June 2007. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-cavanaugh5jun05,0,2402066.story?coll=la-opinion-center.

The College of Humanities and The Ohio State University takes your privacy seriously. Please read our Privacy Policy for more information. This Web site, all content and related materials are ©2003-2010 by the The Department of English, the College of Humanities and The Ohio State University. If you have difficulty accessing any portion of this site due to incompatibility with adaptive technology, or if you need the information in an alternative format, please contact the department at .