• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

A Natural History Of Ghosts

gordonrutter

gordonrutter

Within reason
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
7,226
Radio 4 are starting a new series on Monday the 19th of October
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000nll2
It’s called A Natural History of Ghosts.
Problem is a book with this title came out in 2016.
And the author Roger Clarke is not happy
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/...GiJ0R5udSbo77fz13zLkjyPW3GZs7QVcD_WwR4fhf5bZc
He contacts the presenter / co-writer who claims never to have heard of his book but he is able to point out she picked it as her best written ghost book in 2016 as seen on her website and Twitter...
 
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that book titles - as distinct from their content - are not subject to copyright. (I'm not sure if this is a hard and fast legal rule - or an expression of the general result of legal action on the subject.)

If so she'd have been better just soaking it up - rather than trying to bullshit her way around it. In the first instance courtesy would at least have demanded some contact with the author - in the second, a simple my bad would have created something less likely to be tripped over in future.

Which is often the case.
 
Hmm I wonder if it will get aired on’t radio then was looking forward to that.
 
This is from the UK Copyright Service:

The short answer is to simply say that names, titles, short phrases, (and also colours), are not considered unique or substantial enough to be awarded copyright protection in their own right, but as this is such a common question, it is perhaps worth explaining the logic behind this.
Click to expand...
Source and further elucidation here.

By coincidence I've been looking into related issues myself - but in regard to three dimensional designs.

'Colours' may seem so obvious that it's not worth mentioning, but the legal wrangles over Anish Kapoor's claim to the legal rights over a particular black pigment prove this is not so (and anyway, everyone knows that priests socks are the blackest black known to man - see Father Ted). There are also other precedents.
 
Last edited:
People are now saying that Radio 4 have deleted all their tweets regarding the programme. I haven't checked this though.
 
DrPaulLee said:
People are now saying that Radio 4 have deleted all their tweets regarding the programme. I haven't checked this though.
Click to expand...
Can't find any tweets from Radio 4 about it, and Chris (Gef) Josiffe has requested his contribution be removed.
 
Don't know about Twitter, but it's still listed on the Radio 4 website.

As I've said, I'm not really sure that there's any legal reason that the BBC would have to pull the programme or change the title. I do understand that for an author this might be considered an incursion - but, on the other hand, it's also going to provide a lot of free publicity: every radio punter who types those words into their search engine is going to end up being directed to the book.

If it was me - I'd maybe ca'canny.

Edit: I note that the book itself seems to have been published under two slightly different titles. Not sure why.
 
Last edited:
Spookdaddy said:
Don't know about Twitter, but it's still listed on the Radio 4 website.

As I've said, I'm not really sure that there's any legal reason that the BBC would have to pull the programme or change the title. I do understand that for an author this might be considered an incursion - but, on the other hand, it's also going to provide a lot of free publicity: every radio punter who types those words into their search engine is going to end up being directed to the book.

If it was me - I'd maybe ca'canny.

Edit: I note that the book itself seems to have been published under two slightly different titles. Not sure why.
Click to expand...
I must admit I agree that there is no copyright on book titles so from that point of view it’s tough, nothing to be done about it. However it is bad form from the production team who clearly know the book in question. But on the plus side for the author, this now two year old book has suddenly gone up to the number one position in its section on Amazon.
 
Also, don’t see why the BBC should pull the broadcast. I know the author has asked people who are listening to check none of the content of his book is used.
 
gordonrutter said:
...But on the plus side for the author, this now two year old book has suddenly gone up to the number one position in its section on Amazon.
Click to expand...

In fact I see that it is now temporarily out of stock. Hopefully there's been a bit of a run on Mr Clarke's book. In which case - the beers are on him.

(I did wonder if US law might be different - but apparently not; a book title is considered a 'short slogan' and not eligible for copyright.)
 
I've seen duplicate movie titles go by where the old movie has to be still under copyright so the law is probably the same in the US.
 
Lb8535 said:
I've seen duplicate movie titles go by where the old movie has to be still under copyright so the law is probably the same in the US.
Click to expand...

Yes. Basically it seems that content and title are considered separate legal entities - the former is protected, the latter not.
 
I
Spookdaddy said:
Yes. Basically it seems that content and title are considered separate legal entities - the former is protected, the latter not.
Click to expand...
I expect the reasoning is why would you be dumb enough to confuse people about which one is your own creative product? doesn't take into account the thought of wow, maybe people will think my crummy show is really created by that other guy. In the actors' unions you may not duplicate the name of another registered actor. So if you were christened alec guiness you're out of luck. I do wonder what disney would do if someone else put out a star wars title movie. Send in the lawyers with chain saws I imagine.
 
Lb8535 said:
I expect the reasoning is why would you be dumb enough to confuse people about which one is your own creative product? doesn't take into account the thought of wow, maybe people will think my crummy show is really created by that other guy...
Click to expand...

There's a thing called 'passing off' in English copyright law, and I suspect it's not too different in the US - or anywhere else for that matter: this is basically where you deliberately try to pass off the thing named as the other thing so named. That's a no-no.

...I do wonder what disney would do if someone else put out a star wars title movie...
Click to expand...

The term 'Star Wars' is trademarked, which is a very different kettle of fish to copyright.

...Send in the lawyers with chain saws I imagine.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes - the most expensive chainsaws known to man.
 
Spookdaddy said:
... Edit: I note that the book itself seems to have been published under two slightly different titles. Not sure why.
Click to expand...

Clarke's book was originally published as A Natural History of Ghosts in late 2012. In 2015 a "Reissue" edition was published as Ghosts: A Natural History. As far as I can tell the book has been marketed under this later title ever since.

This would mean the title change occurred before the presenter ever mentioned it in her list of favorite books in 2016:

http://www.kirstylogan.com/best-books-of-2016/

... in which she cited it under the earlier / original title.

Assuming Clarke was party to the title change it would seem he hardly has any basis for disputing anyone else's use of the superseded version - even if a title were subject to copyright protection (which it isn't, as already noted above).

In any case, the phrase "natural history of ghosts" wasn't original to Clarke. In German it's the title of an 1863 treatise in early psychological studies, and it's a chapter title within a well-known volume on the history of social anthropology.

Krause, Ernst. Die Naturgeschichte der Gespenster. Physikalisch-physiologisch-psychologische Studien, Weimar 1863 – The natural history of ghosts. Physico-physiological-psychological studies.

The natural history of ghosts. Chapter 8 in:
From ape to angel : an informal history of social anthropology
Hays, H. R. (Hoffman Reynolds), 1904-1980.
Knopf, 1958.
 
I notice the Ruffles summary is illustrated with an image of the currently-available book and its completely new title.

I find it difficult to see this as anything other than an author's PR stunt to advertise the fact his book was retitled 5 years ago - a PR maneuver motivated by having lost any benefit of a perceived book / series tie-in owing to a title change he presumably approved as copyright holder.

Anyone who happens to see mention of his book under its original title and wishes to buy a copy will have to purchase a used or remaindered copy that presumably won't garner him any royalties. Clarke's only chance for leveraging the BBC series to promote book sales and potential royalties is to advertise the fact his book - once easily mistaken for being connected with the series - must now be purchased (new) under the different title.
 
Although I never actually thought that there was a case in the first place I began this being generally sympathetic to the complainant - but I can see myself losing patience with it all.

As it stands, there’s absolutely no legal case to answer; the two entities so named occupy entirely different formats; the book in question has been packaged under two different titles, both pretty generic and - as EnolaGaia has already pointed out – not unprecedented; the only person who has really gained from the situation – and will likely continue to do so - is the plaintiff.

Tom Ruffle's suggestion that the programmes should be monitored to check that the book has not been 'tapped for its content' is clearly fair enough. But I think people need to be very careful about how they define such a thing: there are very many general books on the subject which utilise much of the same material, and general repetition of subject matter is not evidence of plagiarism; if it were then every writer on the subject should be taking themselves to court, lickity spit.
 
Last edited:
Spookdaddy said:
Well, the title...maybe.
And we already have a thread on the subject here.
Click to expand...

The more recent duplicate thread on the topic has now been merged into this one.
 
Spookdaddy said:
Although I never actually thought that there was a case in the first place I began this being generally sympathetic to the complainant - but I can see myself losing patience with it all.

As it stands, there’s absolutely no legal case to answer; the two entities so named occupy entirely different formats; the book in question has been packaged under two different titles, both pretty generic and - as EnolaGaia has already pointed out – not unprecedented; the only person who has really gained from the situation – and will likely continue to do so - is the plaintiff.

Tom Ruffle's suggestion that the programmes should be monitored to check that the book has not been 'tapped for its content' is clearly fair enough. But I think people need to be very careful about how they define such a thing: there are very many general books on the subject which utilise much of the same material, and general repetition of subject matter is not evidence of plagiarism; if it were then every writer on the subject should be taking themselves to court, lickity spit.
Click to expand...

I agree, I read a bunch of ghost anthologies when I was younger, and it was rare not to see the same stories crop up in different volumes. I think this Ruffle guy might have been putting two and two together to make 5, but I'll listen to the compilation episode on Friday evening anyway - I haven't read his book, but unless he has a unique take on the phenomena I doubt there's a case to answer, it's a very conservative field with plenty of recycling.
 
Having listened to the first omnibus that was on last night (it continues into next week), I'm not sure why she called it a "Natural History" at all, because it's more about the folklore. Maybe the title was decided for her? It's basically a monologue dipping into various legends, I was starting to drift off when suddenly she started talking about growing penises with ghosts and threesomes with ghosts. So there's something I didn't expect.
 
It comes to this:
The title is not copyright to the original writer, though the contents are. So if the programme uses a considerable amount of his text he might have room to complain. But after the initial fuss I'm sure the BBC have interns feverishly comparing both.
It sounds like his book has been given fresh publicity of which (if his royalties are good) he might be very greatful.
It's not really a case of 'passing off' as in both the programme and the book, the actual creator is credited. So the programme isn't pretending to be the original. 'Passing off' is where a copy is made (title, product, whatever) and looks substantially like someone elses property. "Substantially" is the trigger word for solicitors and which goes to court; I'm not too sure if this can be quantified and may be a classic legal 'grey area'. Just because the subject is the same isn't enough to infer some form of confusion.
I know whereof I speak as the firm I own has a particular product trademarked. The product itself - a baked item - can't be trademarked. The name can be! It's actually very hard to either trade mark a recipe or patent a product. Hence the amount of 'knock-offs' in the food industry. Also this is why there are a lot of recipe books: cooks can take someone elses recipe and change it a little or use a different technique to achieve the same results. Naming said products, however, is a different thing.
 
It looks like they've changed the title on BBC sounds?
Screenshot_2020-10-28-18-21-21-225_com.bbc.sounds.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top