The IPKat’s previous blog was the first time we featured the British prison authorities, whom the House of Lords held not liable for an alleged invasion of prison visitors’ privacy. Well, would you believe it, they’re back on the blog again, this time having been accused by British serial killer Dennis Nilsen of refusing to return him the unfinished manuscript of his autobiography. Nilsen, now 57, sent the manuscript to his former lawyers in 1996 but, when his current lawyers tried returning it to him last year, the prison authorities stepped in and told him he couldn’t have it on the ground that prisoners shouldn’t have “a public platform to glory in their crimes”.
Nilsen, who admitted killing and dismembering 15 young men, mainly homeless homosexuals, was jailed for life in 1983. He was told he would never be released, unlike his autobiography which may well be coming out sooner than the prison authorities think. This is because, according to Alison Foster QC who represented him in court, several copies of the manuscript are in the hands of Nilsen’s friends and one copy is believed to be in the hands of an unspecified Sunday newspaper.
The IPKat notes that the rules that are supposed to prevent prisoners cashing in on their crimes by selling their stories or publishing their memoirs do not actually affect the ownership of copyright in their writings. When Nilsen dies, the copyright in his manuscript will pass to his executors along with the rest of his estate. It is not clear whether the Home Office can influence the extent, if any, to which the posthumous publication of a literary work based on a prisoner’s crimes may be restricted or prevented to the extent that it will benefit his estate.
Dennis Nilsen’s crimes here, here and here
Law on prisoners’ earnings in the UK here
Profit from writing about one’s crimes: the position in Oregon
Nilsen, who admitted killing and dismembering 15 young men, mainly homeless homosexuals, was jailed for life in 1983. He was told he would never be released, unlike his autobiography which may well be coming out sooner than the prison authorities think. This is because, according to Alison Foster QC who represented him in court, several copies of the manuscript are in the hands of Nilsen’s friends and one copy is believed to be in the hands of an unspecified Sunday newspaper.
The IPKat notes that the rules that are supposed to prevent prisoners cashing in on their crimes by selling their stories or publishing their memoirs do not actually affect the ownership of copyright in their writings. When Nilsen dies, the copyright in his manuscript will pass to his executors along with the rest of his estate. It is not clear whether the Home Office can influence the extent, if any, to which the posthumous publication of a literary work based on a prisoner’s crimes may be restricted or prevented to the extent that it will benefit his estate.
Dennis Nilsen’s crimes here, here and here
Law on prisoners’ earnings in the UK here
Profit from writing about one’s crimes: the position in Oregon
IT’S THE STORY OF YOUR LIFE -- BUT YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BACK
![IT’S THE STORY OF YOUR LIFE -- BUT YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BACK]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, October 27, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html