As far as “anytime they die,” I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here. Not my expertise at all, but I’d sure expect that an artist could make arrangements to ensure their work isn’t tampered with after they die.
And otherwise, yes. If you give those rights away (not being coerced of course), you have no space to complain when the rightful holder changes them as they see fit. What else is the point of ownership vs licensing?
You don’t see me claiming censorship when I sell my house and the new owner takes down the Ernie Barret replica statue I had in the courtyard. It’s up to the new owner’s completely terrible tastes.
I don't think we need to get into the weeds regarding an obscure discussion of property or estate law because I think that misses the point. No argument from me that the family/publisher broke the law or violated any tenet of property rights here. I acknowledge that the rightsholders had the right to do whatever they wanted with the IP (including censor portions of it it!). I also think lawncare is different than literature for lots of reasons that we can (but I don't think *need* to) discuss.
What happened is that the books he authored had portions deleted because they were considered objectionable - which happens to actually be the dictionary definition of "censor." That you think that's not merely "not censorship," but actually the
opposite of censorship is bonkers to me. And not for nothing, but i think we can agree that not all censorship is necessarily "bad." But I think it's starts approaching "bad" when you're modifying someone else's art to make it less offensive without their approval (read: after they're dead). And I think assuming that Dahl approved of these changes by not dotting his i's or crossing his t's in his estate plan is a pretty big assumption.
