“The witnesses’ statements have enabled us to uncover your actions: you have continued to denigrate our regime and the Soviet Union. You have listened to the “voice of America”
“The Accusation Act for her case: Emelianova, Légendes, p.46.”
“In most cases the sources of quotations are made clear in the text. The principal narrative sources are: Olga Ivinskaya’s A Captive of Time (Collins and Harvill 1978), Irina Emelianova’s Légendes de la rue Potapov (Fayard 1997), and author interviews with Pasternak family members (see Acknowledgements). With the help of the Bibliography interested readers will be able to trace any other references without undue trouble.”
“Throughout the novel are many direct descriptions and quotes, including excerpts of conversations, as documented in first-hand accounts.”
“No, I had read that sentence, and when I am talking about the identity theft, I am talking about the defendant claiming in interviews she was telling the untold love story, she was telling the story of a woman whose voice deserved to be told, that the world needed to hear the voice of this woman, when I had told the world this two years prior, That was the identity theft, the sense that the defendant was coming out and claiming that she was telling the story of a woman whose voice deserved to be told when I had very clearly told that story.”
“(1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work- (a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, (b) sound recordings, films or broadcasts, and (c) the typographical arrangement of published editions. (2) In this Part "copyright work" means a work of any of those descriptions in which copyright subsists. (3) Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this Part with respect to qualification for copyright protection are met (see section 153 and the provisions referred to there).”
“(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom (a) to copy the work (see section 17); (b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18); (ba) to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A); (c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19); (d) to communicate the work to the public (see section 20); (e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21); and those acts are referred to in this Part as the "acts restricted by the copyright".” (a) to copy the work (see section 17); (b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18); (ba) to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A); (c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19); (d) to communicate the work to the public (see section 20); (e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21); and those acts are referred to in this Part as the "acts restricted by the copyright".”
“(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright. (3) References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it- (a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it, and (b) either directly or indirectly; and it is immaterial whether any intervening acts themselves infringe copyright.” (a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it, and and it is immaterial whether any intervening acts themselves infringe copyright.”
“(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows. (2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.”
“(1) The issue to the public of copies of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; (2) References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of the work are to the act of putting into circulation in the United Kingdom copies not previously put into circulation in the EEA by or with the consent of the copyright owner.”
“It is not, however, sufficient for the alleged infringing work simply to replicate or use items of information, facts, ideas, theories, arguments, themes and so on derived from the original copyright work.”
“The need to prove copying involves showing a design nexus between the defendant's and the claimant's works. However it is a mistake to believe that any nexus will do. The law of copyright has never gone as far as to protect general themes, styles or ideas. Monet, like those before him, acquired no right to prevent others from painting flowers or even water lilies or, to take an example referred to by Mr Howe, Georges Seurat would not have obtained, through copyright, the right to prevent others from painting in a pointillist style. Even someone who is inspired by Monet to paint water lilies or by Seurat to paint using coloured dots would not infringe copyright. Such general concepts are not put out of bounds to others by the law of copyright. Needless to say, it is impossible to define the boundary between mere taking of general concepts and ideas on the one hand and copying in the copyright sense on the other. Judge Learned Hand in Nichols v Universal Pictures Co 45 F 2nd 119 (2nd Cir. 1930) said that wherever the line is drawn will seem arbitrary. He also said: "Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times may consist of only its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his "ideas', to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended." (p.121)” "Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times may consist of only its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his "ideas', to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended." (p.121)”
“33 Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 provides that authors have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit reproduction, in whole or in part, of their works. It follows that protection of the author's right to authorise or prohibit reproduction is intended to cover "work". 34 It is, moreover, apparent from the general scheme of the Berne Convention, in particular art.2(5) and (8), that the protection of certain subject-matters as artistic or literary works presupposes that they are intellectual creations. 35 Similarly, under arts 1(3) of Directive 91/250, 3(1) of Directive 96/9 and 6 of Directive 2006/116, works such as computer programs, databases or photographs are protected by copyright only if they are original in the sense that they are their author's own intellectual creation. 36 In establishing a harmonised legal framework for copyright, Directive 2001/29 is based on the same principle, as evidenced by recitals 4, 9-11 and 20 in the preamble thereto. 37 In those circumstances, copyright within the meaning of art.2(a) of Directive 2001/29 is liable to apply only in relation to a subject matter which is original in the sense that it is its author's own intellectual creation.”
“45 Regarding the elements of such works covered by the protection, it should be observed that they consist of words which, considered in isolation, are not as such an intellectual creation of the author who employs them. It is only through the choice, sequence and combination of those words that the author may express his creativity in an original manner and achieve a result which is an intellectual creation. 46 Words as such do not, therefore, constitute elements covered by the protection. 47 That being so, given the requirement of a broad interpretation of the scope of the protection conferred by art.2 of Directive 2001/29, the possibility may not be ruled out that certain isolated sentences, or even certain parts of sentences in the text in question, may be suitable for conveying to the reader the originality of a publication such as a newspaper article, by communicating to that reader an element which is, in itself, the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of that article. Such sentences or parts of sentences are, therefore, liable to come within the scope of the protection provided for in art.2(a) of that Directive.”
“38 As regards the parts of a work, it should be borne in mind that there is nothing in Directive 2001/29 or any other relevant Directive indicating that those parts are to be treated any differently from the work as a whole. It follows that they are protected by copyright since, as such, they share the originality of the whole work. 39 In the light of the considerations referred to in [37] of this judgment, the various parts of a work thus enjoy protection under art.2(a) of Directive 2001/29, provided that they contain elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work.”
“Our domestic legislation confines the doing of a restricted act (e.g. copying) to doing that act in relation to the work as a whole or any "substantial part of it":Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.16 (1) , s.16 (3), Nova Productions Lid v Mazooma Games Lid[2007] EWCA Civ 219 , [2007] R.P.C. 25 at [29]. It has long been the position in domestic law that what is substantial is a question to be answered qualitatively rather than quantitatively. In Infopaq the court said that parts of a work are entitled to the same protection as the work as a whole. But the parts in question must "contain elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work": [39]. This is now the test for determining whether a restricted act has been done in relation to a substantial part of a work. Both counsel agreed that to interpret s.16 (3) in this way was consistent with the court's duty to interpret domestic legislation, so far as possible, so as to conform with European directives. I do not think that anything in the decisions of this court in Nova Productions Lid v Mazooma Games Lid and The Newspaper Licensing Agency v Meltwater Holding BV[2011] EWCA Civ 890 , [2012] R.P.C. I casts doubt on that proposition.”
“As Mr Howe Q.C. pointed out, unlike the Software Directive, the Information Society Directive does not expressly deal with the scope of copyright protection (i.e. what is capable of being protected by copyright). Nevertheless the ECJ (and latterly the CJEU) has supplied the omission. What is protected is the expression of an author's "intellectual creation". The phrase "intellectual creation" does not appear in the Information Society Directive.”
“The court has also considered what amounts to an "intellectual creation" on a number of occasions. The essence of the term is that the person in question has exercised expressive and creative choices in producing the work. The more restricted the choices, the less likely it is that the product will be the intellectual creation (or the expression of the intellectual creation) of the person who produced it. InCase C-393/09 , Bezpecnostni softwarová asociace - Svaz softwarove ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury [2010] E.C.R. 1-13971, [2011] ECDR 3, [2011] F.S.R. 18 ("BSA") what was in issue was a graphic user interface which enabled a computer user to communicate with a computer program. The question referred was whether it was protected by the Software Directive. The answer was "no", The reason was that it was not "a form of expression of a computer program"; see [42]. However, both Advocate-General Bot and the court itself also considered whether it could be protected by the Information Society Directive. The Advocate-General began at [73] and [74] by recognising that the development of an interface required considerable intellectual effort on the part of its developer. That intellectual effort included using a programming language to create a complex structure. But that did not necessarily mean that the product of that intellectual effort qualified for copyright protection. He continued at [75] and [76]: "75. The difficulty as regards determination of the originality of the graphic user interface lies in the fact that the majority of the elements which comprise it have a functional purpose, since they are intended to facilitate the use of the computer program. Accordingly, the manner in which those elements are expressed can be only limited since, as the Commission stated in its written submissions, the expression is dictated by the technical function which those elements fulfil. Such is the case, for example, of the mouse which moves the cursor across the screen, pointing at the command button in order to make it operate or of the drop-down menu which appears when a text file is open. "75. The difficulty as regards determination of the originality of the graphic user interface lies in the fact that the majority of the elements which comprise it have a functional purpose, since they are intended to facilitate the use of the computer program. Accordingly, the manner in which those elements are expressed can be only limited since, as the Commission stated in its written submissions, the expression is dictated by the technical function which those elements fulfil. Such is the case, for example, of the mouse which moves the cursor across the screen, pointing at the command button in order to make it operate or of the drop-down menu which appears when a text file is open. 76. In such cases, it seems to me that the criterion of originality is not met, since the different methods of implementing an idea are so limited that the idea and the expression become indissociable. If such a possibility was offered, it would have the consequence of conferring a monopoly on certain companies on the computer program market, thus significantly hampering creation and innovation on that market, which would run contrary to the objective of Directive 2001/29." ”
“If the Information Society Directive has changed the traditional domestic test, it seems to me that it has raised rather than lowered the hurdle to obtaining copyright protection.”
“To amount to an infringement, however, the copying must be of either the original work or a "substantial part" of it: s. 16(3)(a) of CDPA. This is a qualitative, not quantitative, question. The test is whether the part in question contains elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work: Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV[2011] EWCA Civ 890 , at [24]-[28], applying Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] E.C.D.R. 16; [2010] F.S.R. 20. The essential consideration is to ask whether a defendant has taken that which conferred originality on the claimant's copyright work (or a substantial part of it): Mitchell v BBC[2011] EWPCC 42, per HHJ Birss QC at [28]-[29].”
“The literary copyright exists in HBHG by reason of the skill and labour expended by the claimants in the original composition and production of it and the original manner or form of expression of the results of their research. Original expression includes not only the language in which the work is composed but also the original selection, arrangement and compilation of the raw research material. It does not, however, extend to clothing information, facts, ideas, theories and themes with exclusive property rights, so as to enable the claimants to monopolise historical research or knowledge and prevent the legitimate use of historical and biographical material, theories propounded, general arguments deployed, or general hypotheses suggested (whether they are sound or not) or general themes written about.”
“It must be recalled, first, that the specific instances dealt with above were put forward by Ms Kogan as examples, and not as the totality of her case. Secondly, the task for the court was to ascertain whether Ms Kogan's contribution was made in the course of a collaboration, and, if so, whether it crossed the relatively undemanding threshold for joint authorship set by Infopaq [2010] F.S.R. 20 and subsequent authority.”
“Once the claimant has identified a copyright work, he must prove that the defendant has copied at least a substantial part of it. In many cases he will not be able to call upon a witness who observed the act of copying. He, therefore, will have to make out his case in other ways. Normally he will point to similarities between the alleged infringement and the copyright work, taking into account evidence of opportunity to copy and motive, and will ask the court to infer that copying has occurred. As a general rule, the greater the similarities between the alleged infringement and the copyright work, the greater the prospect of copying being inferred. However, similarities do not necessarily indicate copying. The author and the defendant may have worked quite independently from common sources, in similar environments, to achieve similar objectives and made use of similar common design techniques so as to produce works which have a degree of visual similarity.”
“Furthermore it is necessary to be alert to the possibility of being misled by what may be called similarity by excision. Michelangelo said of one of his sculptures, "I saw the angel in the marble and I carved until I set him free", In copyright cases, chipping away and ignoring all the bits which are undoubtedly not copied may result in the creation of an illusion of copying in what is left. This is a particular risk during a trial. Inevitably the court will be invited by the claimant to concentrate on the respects in which his work and the alleged infringements are similar. But with sufficient concentration one may lose sight of the differences. They may be just as important in deciding whether copying has taken place. The effect can be explained by an analogy, Two individuals drop similar small quantities of sand on the floor. If one removes all the grains of sand which are not in equivalent positions, all you are left with are those which are in equivalent positions. If you look at those remaining grains it is possible to say that similar patterns of distribution exist. It is even possible to say that these similarities are surprising. But the similarities and the surprise they elicit are an artefact created by the very process of ignoring all the other grains. This type of artefact created by close attention only to the areas of similarity is a risk in any court proceedings.”
“For example, it is easier to establish infringement of the copyright in a literary work if the copying is exactly word for word (verbatim or "slavish" copying), or if there are only slight changes in the wording, perhaps in some optimistic attempt to disguise plagiarism. The essence of literary copyright is proprietary protection (in the form of exclusive rights to do acts restricted by the copyright in the work) for a literary work in recognition of the investment of effort, time and skill in reducing it into material form, such as words, signs and symbols. Although there is no objection to calling word for word copying "language copying", it is, in my view, potentially confusing to describe it as "textual copying" and it is better to avoid the use of that expression. The "text" of a literary work may cover more than the particular words in which it is expressed and extend to its overall content, including the selection, arrangement and development of ideas, theories, information, facts, incidents, characters, narrative and so on.”
“There is some confusion in this case both in the judgment and in the defendant's submissions between the subsistence of copyright (what is the copyright work?) and its infringement (has a substantial part of the copyright work been copied?). Under the 1988 Act subsistence and infringement are distinct issues.”
“A. I would completely agree with what you are saying. There is similarities between invaluable and incredible and differences, yes. But I still stand by the fact that Lara Prescott came up to me at that party and, in my memory, she said it was an invaluable resource, because I remember being so stunned by it. I was really, really surprised. Q. But your memory may be confused, might it not? A. It might have confused invaluable and incredible, that is possible. Q. Actually, you may, in fact, be confusing what was said at the event with what you then had received later -.... A. No. Q. -- in an e-mail? A. No, that cannot be the case because why then in an e-mail to Jeff Kleinman would I have said I so surprised by the lack of acknowledgment when Lara Prescott had told me at the party that she had based the Boris and Olga sections on my book? Why would I have written that to Jeff Kleinman if that encounter had not happened?”
“To be particular, I thought it was important and relevant that she had said that my wife's book was an invaluable resource and she had based the love story between Olga and Boris on my wife's book. That is what I thought was important.”
“I think there was an e-mail from Lara Prescott to my wife, which used the same word. And the reason why I think I remember it is the context that I gave to it. Obviously there is a huge amount of things that are said that I do not remember, but my wife had particularly not wanted to go to this event, and I persuaded her to go and I even argued that she should go. And the reason she did not want to go was that she had read a little bit of Lara's book and had not really appreciated it. So I was encouraging her to collaborate with Lara Prescott. So on the way home from the event, I went through these statements from Lara Prescott in the car, as we walked to the car, to say, "Look she found it invaluable. She said she based the love story on your book. What more could you ask for", type thing. I thought this was vindication of my argument for going to the event.”
“Q. I want to focus in on what you admit you did say which was thanking her for writing the book? A. Mmm.hmmm. Q. What exactly were you thanking her for. What did you mean by thank you for writing the book? A. I was thanking her because she was one of my secondary sources. I acknowledged her, I used her book, I was thanking her, as I would any of the people's books I had read.”
“I have to be honest with you that on reading Lara Prescott's acknowledgments for The Secrets We Kept, I was surprised that my book Lara: The Untold Love Story That Inspired Doctor Zhivago was not listed after Lara Prescott's fulsome mention of The Zhivago Affair. This was curious to me when Lara admitted to me in person that she based the love story between Olga and Boris in The Secrets We Kept on my book and how useful an early American proof had been to her. I also feel similarly put out that in the listing for my book, she has failed to include the book's full title which is as above, Lara; The Untold Love Story that Inspired Doctor Zhivago. Please can this be remedied asap and for all foreign publications? As you will appreciate I put a lot of work into Lara; The Untold Love Story That Inspired Doctor Zhivago- ten years of research and the use of original family and archive material and I feel very strongly that all sources should be properly acknowledged. I am vigilant about acknowledging sources in my books and always seek to be as generous as possible to authors whose work has been invaluable to me.”
“I'm so sorry about the oversight in my acknowledgments! I loved your amazing book and found it an extremely important resource, and absolutely should have made that known more prominently. The acknowledgments were very tough for me to write for some reason (even my own husband wasn't happy with how I acknowledged him at first!). The first editions in the US and UK have been printed already, though I'll work on changing it for future printings, and will change immediately for all international editions that haven't been printed yet. How's something like this? My utmost gratitude goes to Anna Pasternak, who spent over a decade researching the life of Olga Ivinskaya for her tremendous book Lara: The Untold Love Story and the Inspiration for Doctor Zhivago. She brought Olga back to the forefront of Boris Pasternak's story, and I found her book an incredible resource as I attempted to do the same. What do you think? My sincere apologies; it was a real oversight and I feel terrible. I've been talking about your book during my interviews this week (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Sunday Times) to let readers know how to learn more about the real story, and will certainly continue talking about it with future media. I'm also drafting a piece to hopefully run in the Telegraph around publication that mentions your book as a resource to learn more. I can't wait to see you in October and hope I can buy you a drink.”
“24. Ultimately, the issue of precisely what D said to C and Mr Wallas at the party on 13th (or 18th) March 2019 may be something of a red herring. The real issue for the court is to look at the evidence and to assess whether it does show that there had been copying of a substantial part of C's copyright work.”
“Yikes. We can of course have everything changed in future, but for reprints let's get the acknowledgments changed in the US and UK, and any other publication we can? Lara, do you want to draft something?”
“I would just tell Jeff to reply and say that it'll be amended in future editions. And yeah, brazen move for someone who literally plagiarized her book! Haha.”
“It marked the beginning of a new and terrible ordeal for Olga, who was destined for the labour camps of Potma, over 450 kilometres away from Moscow, in the “Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Mordovia”
“And it was only then that it hit me: five years in a reeducation camp in Potma. Five years, six hundred kilometres from Moscow. My daughter and son would be teenagers. My mother would be nearly seventy. Would she still be alive? Boris would have moved on – maybe having found a new muse, a new Lara. Maybe he already had.”
“What are your initials? Get dressed for interrogation!”
“I was awoken with the tap of a wooden truncheon against my bare shoulder. “Initials!” spat the guard hovering over my bed. The men who came at night always demanded our initials before taking us away.”
“Q. You had this book [TZA] .... A. Yes. Q. ... for two years before you got Lara, you had this book for two and a half years before you had this September document we are looking at, and yet those words did not find their way in as a result of what was in The Zhivago Affair or A Captive of Time? A. That is correct. However, you are talking about my first experimental draft. You are talking about how -- it is dismissing the point that I was re-reading these constantly. I feel like any time you re-read these books, which I have read all of these several times since these allegations, you pick up new facts. You pick up all of these facts that Peter Finn already said. So it is saying that between this chapter and this chapter the only book I could have read is Lara, and that is just not true. Q. The question is what inspired you to go and look at this, because when you saw -- A. Because of the scene -- Q. Let me finish my question. When you saw the references to books and letters, that was as a result of reading Lara, was it not? A. Honestly, I am writing a scene about the interrogation and Lubyanka and going to look at each of those books, because it is important to me. I highly prized what Peter Finn said. I wanted to go to the direct source in A Captive of Time. How can I remember if it was Lara that I picked up first versus Peter Finn and A Captive of Time book that I picked up first, which I had already considered to be the primary sources.”
“I picked up some of the details of one off the hand before really comparing them. There is definitely the cornflower colour. I know that come from Lara because cornflower is such a particular shade of blue. There is really no photos of Olga in colour, so I thought it was a great detail.”
“But then suddenly, when our reunion was actually in the offing, he got it into his head that neither I nor he were what we had been before, that he received from his heart attack only thanks to Zinaida Nikolayevna, and that he must therefore sacrifice his personal feelings on the altar of devotion and gratitude to her. With this in mind he summoned Ira, now fifteen years old, to meet him on Chistye Prudy Boulevard, and charged her with a very peculiar errand: she was to tell me, her mother, when I returned from the camp after my four years there, that he still loved me and that all was well, but that a change might now come about in our relationship. It is a pity Ira never made a note of the conversation to preserve the full flavour of his words – the mixture of candour, guileless charm, and undeniable heartlessness.”
“Goslitizdat never published extracts from the book or the poetry. The journal Znamia also turned down the manuscript. By May 1956, the novel, rejected by the three Russian publishing houses who had been sent the bound manuscripts, remained unpublished. Little did Boris, Olga and Irina know that the book was to have the most remarkable life of its own.”
“A. I recognise the actual details of what the dacha looked like, the three new rooms, gas heat, running water, having come from The Zhivago Affair. Again, I was looking at A Captive of Time, and I was looking at Lara if it had these scene in history in it. So we would have to check.”
“Q. You are absolutely right, some of those details are in The Zhivago Affair. A. In order. Q. The strange thing is that The Zhivago Affair is not mentioned in your Annex B as a possible source. You can see that if you go to B1-358. A. Yes. Q. I have been told I might have got that wrong. A. It is in it. Q. Looks like I have got that wrong. It is mentioned in paragraph 190. A. Yes, and almost the exact same passage is in Lara, as The Zhivago Affair. Q. So the question here then would be whether, when you wrote this, you were copying from Lara or whether you were copying from The Zhivago Affair. We will move on. The next - and the only thing I would add to that is --- MR. JUSTICE EDWIN JOHNSON: You stated a question there, Mr. Caddick, but were you putting the question to the witness or--- MR. CADDICK: No, I was rather backing away from the fact that my preparation had proved inadequate. I had thought it was not mentioned in the Schedule B. It is always apparent that the references to the three new rooms and the gas heating were in The Zhivago Affair, but the interesting point was I thought, wrongly, that it had not been mentioned in Schedule B and my junior was pointing out I had that wrong. It is mentioned in Schedule B at paragraph 190. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. CADDICK: So the issue there then, is going to be whether or not when you drafted yours you were looking at Lara or whether you were looking at The Zhivago Affair? A. Or both. Q. Or both, yes. The point I was going to make is the fact is you wrote this scene after you acquired Lara, did you not? A. That is correct. At the time of writing this - what was the date of the first? Q.18th January 2017 . A. 18th January, so it has been a number of months since I acquired it. Q. A considerable amount of time after you had had The Zhivago Affair, because you had had that for about two and a half .... A. Absolutely. but I have read it multiple times since. Q. But you had not written the scene, despite having had it. Let us move to the next thing.”
“Every Sunday, Irina, Mitia and Olga’s friends from Moscow would visit. Olga and Boris would host these informal Sunday lunches, which soon turned into regular literary gatherings.”
“On Sundays we were visited by my mother, Ira, and our friends and acquaintances. It was very agreeable to be able to receive them all in a home of one’s own. These occasions on which we kept open house sometimes turned into regular literary gatherings.”
“You mark my words. They will not publish this novel for anything in the world.”. “You must be patient. You don’t know that yet.” “They’ll never allow it.”
“You mark my words, they will not publish this novel for anything in the world. I don’t believe that they will ever publish it. I have come to the conclusion that I should pass it round ready to be read by all and sundry – it should be given to anyone who asks for it, because I do not believe it will ever appear in print.”
“On a warm evening that autumn of 1955, after one of my regular trips to Moscow, Boria and I were walking over the long bridge across the Izmalkovo lake, when he said to me: “You mark my words - they will not publish this novel for anything in the world. I don’t believe they will ever publish it. I have come to the conclusion that I should pass it round to be read by all and sundry - it should be given to anyone who asks for it, because I do not believe it will ever appear in print.”
“As Pasternak and Ivinskaya walked over the footbridge across Izmalkovo Pond one evening that fall, he said: “You mark my words – they will not publish this novel for anything in the world. I don’t believe they will ever publish it. I have come to the conclusion that I should pass it around to be read by all and sundry.”
“A. Yes, I think I did glean the phrase "downward spiral" [I assume that this phrase, which appears in the transcript, is a reference to “down a spiral” – the transcription may have been inaccurate at this point] from Lara, although, as you said, I use it in a different person, Olga saying it to Boris, after they are having a fight about him giving it to D'Angelo. Mine is also at a very different point in time in the narrative. When Irina is saying this, they are already ready for publication. When I am saying this, it is just when he hands to D'Angelo and they are having an argument. So the chronology is different. But, yes, I think that word, I think I like it, I think it stuck in my head. I do not remember looking at that sentence and thinking, like, "I am writing this down", but it probably stuck in my head, and used in a different way.”
“Q. Given what we have seen throughout about the extent to which you were using Lara at this time, is it not likely that the reason for that similarity is because you were using Lara as a source as your material? A. As a source? It was likely I looked at Lara, but I definitely was looking at the The Zhivago Affair, which I believe outlines almost all of these things as well, and many of them are in A Captive of Time too.” “MR. JUSTICE EDWIN JOHNSON: So the question, Ms. Prescott, was is the reason for the similarity in these points because you were copying from Lara? A. I definitely looked at Lara, I am sure, but these elements are also in the The Zhivago Affair as well and A Captive of Time.”
“Doctor Zhivago was a controversial bestseller. Its progress around the world had begun.”
“You haven’t signed a contract,”
“I had tried my best, but my best was not enough. Doctor Zhivago was a speeding train that could not be stopped.”
“Only after he was gone was I allowed inside the Big House. Zinaida opened the door without a word and I rushed past her to his still-warm body. They’d just cleaned him and replaced the bedsheet, but the room still smelled like antiseptic and shit.”
“But Anatoli, I am no nameless number. I will not disappear.”
“He also asked that I not come, saying his wife had warned against it. Z, in her foolishness, would not have the wit to spare me. But if things worsen, I’ll send for you.”
“As I said before, I do not remember how I wrote each individual sentence of my novel, of thousands of pages of my novel over the years it took me to write it. I honestly do not think I got it from there, but there is obviously a possibility that one word stuck in my brain.”
“The witnesses’ statements have enabled us to uncover your actions: you have continued to denigrate our regime and the Soviet Union. You have listened to the “voice of America”
“The witnesses’ statements have enabled us to uncover your actions: you have continued to denigrate our regime and the Soviet Union. You have listened to the“voice of America”
“It is often said that changing the expression of a work from one medium or form to another will entitle the new work to copyright. As a generalisation, this is true but it is no more than another way of saying that skill and labour expended on the creation of a work confer originality. The work of a reporter in faithfully reporting a speech delivered orally is an example of the expenditure of skill and labour in connection with a change of medium which has been held to entitle a work to protection." An example of a change of form is the work of a translator, which has long been entitled to protection.”
“Copyright in a work is not infringed by the use of a quotation from the work (whether for criticism or review or otherwise) provided that- (a) the work has been made available to the public, (b) the use of the quotation is fair dealing with the work, (c) the extent of the quotation is no more than is required by the specific purpose for which it is used, and (d) the quotation is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement (unless this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise).”
"It is impossible to lay down any hard-and-fast definition of what is fair dealing, for it is a matter of fact, degree and impression. [1] However, by far the most important factor is whether the alleged fair dealing is in fact commercially competing with the proprietor's exploitation of the copyright work, a substitute for the probable purchase of authorised copies, and the like. If it is, the fair dealing defence will almost certainly fail. If it is not and there is a moderate taking and there are no special adverse factors, the defence is likely to succeed, especially if the defendant's additional purpose is to right a wrong, to ventilate an honest grievance, to engage in political controversy, and so on. [2] The second most important factor is whether the work has already been published or otherwise exposed to the public. If it has not, and especially if the material has been obtained by a breach of confidence or other mean or underhand dealing, the courts will be reluctant to say this is fair. However this is by no means conclusive, for sometimes it is necessary for the purposes of legitimate public controversy to make use of 'leaked' information. [3] The third most important factor is the amount and importance of the work that has been taken. For, although it is permissible to take a substantial part of the work (if not, there could be no question of infringement in the first place), in some circumstances the taking of an excessive amount, or the taking of even a small amount if on a regular basis, would negative fair dealing."
“Q. You saw the quotation, you used it, you did not see or did not take any steps at all, not even looking in the same book you had taken it from? A. No, I looked at the same book, just not at the immediate time that I read and probably put it in. Q. The same book tells you where the quotation came from? A. Yes, Légendes. Q. You did not pick up on that and try and acknowledge Legendes as a source of that? A. Are you saying I should have acknowledged Légendes because that is where it came from? Q. Well, that is going to be a matter of legal submission for your counsel to make. A. Yes, I will leave it up to them. Q. Factually, you did not acknowledge it. Factually, I am putting to you that you had the means by which you could have I could not have changed my acknowledgments from the past. acknowledged it? A. Yes.”