Madam, - On the same day (February 2nd) that the Minister for the Arts made a point of welcoming a representative of the Joyce Estate to the launch of ReJoyce 2004 at the Guinness Storehouse, Mr Stephen James Joyce gave a press conference at the James Joyce Pub in Zurich during which he declared, among other familiar things, that Ireland did not deserve to host such an event.
It was therefore with dismay that I put down Jamie Smyth's report on ReJoyce 2004 (The Irish Times, February 9th) which suggested that the Joyce Estate holds all the cards and that Joyce's writings, the object of celebrations, are to be banished from the party that the Irish are throwing, at great expense and with much pomp.
This utterly preposterous situation whereby an individual outside the State can threaten to strangle a national celebration before it even begins (and Mr Joyce has sent letters to many more recipients than those mentioned by your reporter) has its origin in a hybrid and regressive piece of legislation forced upon this country by the EU.
Article 27.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: "Everyone has the right to freely participate in the culture of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits". On January 1st, 1992, the works of James Joyce entered into the public domain in Ireland and became a part of the common culture of the community. They became ours, freely to enjoy, adapt, edit, perform, parody, plagiarise, pillory or whatever. On July 1st, 1995, these rights were taken suddenly from the people and handed over (arbitrarily and possibly unconstitutionally, in my view) to the Joyce Estate, gratis and, as it turns out, without gratitude.
All is not lost, however. Thanks to some lobbying by, as I understand it, some British and Irish officials, a "saving" clause was inserted whereby states were enabled to protect the "acquired rights" of persons who had exploited or made preparations to exploit the relevant works. Thus two new kinds of copyright, extended and revived, were created and, contrary to Mr Smyth's report, it is the lesser, revived copyright that applies to the Joyce works. And even this applies only to those works that were in copyright in at least one EU member state in 1995. Unfortunately, Ulysses, being first published in France, remained in copyright in France in 1995 thanks to special provisions enacted in that country because of the second World War.
For revived copyright works, anyone in the country, anybody at all, who exploited the works of James Joyce in the period 1992-1995 or who made preparations of a substantial nature to exploit the works can continue to exploit those works right up until 2011, when they go back into the public domain. Furthermore, these acquired rights are transferable to third parties. The law is specific on these points.
Now, I would call on all those people who did anything at all along these lines in the relevant period to contact me (mmlj@eircom.net) and I will try to put them in touch with the many artists, impresarios and others who would dearly like to make a meaningful contribution to the celebrations.
There will be major readings, performances and adaptations of Joyce's works this year, if not within ReJoyce 2004 then as part of an alternative festival, FreeJoyce 2004. And while the Government is justified in saying that the State cannot condone the infringement of the Joyce Estate's rights, it equally has a duty to protect the acquired rights of its own citizens, thereby saving the celebrations from turning into a complete farce. - Yours, etc.,
DANIS ROSE, Strawberry Beds, Dublin 20.