Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01176)

John recently stated: ?My interpretation of Tillett's explanation was that
Coopers wife, in her great time of loss and grieving was pressured and
prevailed upon by the
Organization and gave in and signed over the "copyright" as legal heir and
successor
in spite of the views and reservations that others had or have that might
have been be perfectly justified.?

This statement is incorrect. There were certainly attempts to pressure
John?s widow to do what is suggested. She was deeply distressed and felt
quite threatened by actions taken by Dr Algeo and others on his behalf.
However, she gave away nothing and signed nothing.

Following John?s death, as the Literary Executor of his Estate, and acting
upon instructions from his heirs, I advised Dr Algeo that: (1) all
intellectual property rights in the manuscript of the HPB correspondence
had now passed to John?s heirs; (2) I was acting on their behalf; (3) the
heirs were fully prepared to allow the publication of the manuscript (and
to provide copies of all additional research materials collected by John
to facilitate the publication of this volume and subsequent volumes); (4)
however they required an undertaking that (a) John?s role as editor and
their intellectual property rights were to be acknowledged in the first
volume, and (b) that no changes would be made in John?s original work
without their prior approval. No reply was ever received by me or the
family, nor was the correspondence acknowledged. I subsequently wrote
again ? and eventually to all members of the Committee involved in he
proposed publication for whom I had contact details ? informing them that,
if the original conditions required by the family were not met, any use of
John?s work, directly or indirectly, would be in breach of their
intellectual property rights. No member of the Committee acknowledged, let
alone replied to, that correspondence. A letter was received from a firm
of attorneys in the USA appearing to claiming, with John?s death, no
rights existed. If this is what was being claimed, it is a legal nonsense
under both Australian and US law.

The publication proceeded with the claim implying that it made no use of
John?s research. However, taking the published volume and John?s PhD
thesis (which was the original work he submitted to Dr Algeo), and
comparing them page by page, the parallels are obvious.

Although we had taken advice from a US attorney on the options for legal
action to protect John?s work and the family?s rights, the costs involved
would have been vast, and the family did not have access to the resources
of a large organization (like the TS in America) on which to draw.

I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions on the morality ? if
not the legality ? of using the property of a dead man, against the wishes
of his widow and children.

Dr Gregory Tillett