Sally Rooney: How far should an author of fiction have control over their work?
Sally Rooney has made headlines in the literary community and the wider society, after refusing the offer made by an Israeli publisher to translate her new novel ‘Beautiful world, where are you’ into Hebrew. Due to her stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, Rooney stated she does not want to collaborate with an Israeli company that does not unequivocally support the human rights of the Palestinian people stipulated in the UN declaration of Human Rights. Rooney’s two previous bestsellers Normal People and Conversations with Friends were both translated into Hebrew. She has stated she would be happy to have her work translated into Hebrew if the sale of these translation rights is compliant with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, which aims to end support for the Israeli regime.
The refusal to sell her translation rights will prevent Hebrew language publications of Beautiful World, and therefore restricts the dissemination of her work. Under UK copyright law, stipulated in the Designs, Patents Act 1988, the original author of a literary piece is entitled to control the dissemination of their work, by preventing people from making an adaptation of their work. As a translation is essentially the transfer of meaning from one language to another, Rooney has rights as a creator to confer the right to translate her original work upon another, as the translator is essentially expressing Rooney’s original ideas in a foreign language.
Though Rooney has merely exercised her legal rights as an author by refusing to sell her translation rights to an Israeli publishing house, her political stance has attracted both support and condemnation. The pro-BDS movement emphasises an author has the choice to either do business with companies supporting the BDO movement or to collaborate with companies that do not support it. Rebecca Vilkomerson, former executive director of the pro-BDS Jewish Vote for Peace stated that finding a pro-BDS Hebrew-language publisher in Israel is not impossible. Through selling her translation rights, Rooney would be entering into a contractual relationship with the publishing house. Both parties would confer a benefit upon the other, in exchange for a benefit in return, making them mutually interdependent. Rooney has the right to choose the party she wants to form a voluntary contractual relationship with. As the creator of the literary work, she retains the right to control who can profit from the dissemination of her work and who cannot.
However, the Israeli literary community has criticised Rooney for selectively targeting Israel, and alleges she is holding Israeli publishing to unrealistic standards. Shelly Goldman, a newspaper editor from Tel Aviv has accused Rooney of hypocrisy, highlighting that her former works have been translated into the language of and disseminated in countries such as China and Russia, whose governments have attracted widespread condemnation for their breach of fundamental human rights. This sits uncomfortably with Rooney’s declared support for the human rights of the Palestinian people. Rooney appears to only use her copyright to actively combat suspected human rights violations in one regime, but not others.
Furthermore, Rooney is effectively using her copyright to deny native Hebrew speakers access to the themes of her work in their mother tongue. Rooney’s work has struck a chord with audiences worldwide mainly due to her creation of flawed, yet relatable characters, whose experiences draw upon many real-life experiences of young people navigating the transition into adult life. It is valuable for a wide range of audiences to consider Rooney’s perspectives on such themes, which are presented through her Marxist perspective.
Yet, the cultural enrichment of audiences is arguably not a sufficient reason to qualify or invalidate Rooney’s right to copyright. Placing access to a relatively apolitical work of fiction above the creator’s right to control who can adapt and profit from their ideas appears particularly disproportionate. Compelling arguments to place access to ideas above the creator’s rights are illustrated in discussions on the possibility of derogating from IP rights to improve global access to vaccines. Facilitating equal distribution of vaccines through sharing between nations has the potential to save millions of lives. In relation to this, access to a fictional literary work for the purposes of leisure is arguably a privilege that the author has voluntarily conferred upon the individual. The author rightly reserves the right to determine who can translate and share their work with foreign audiences.
