Auckland Museum and the Hillary bequest

The NZ Herald with it’s populist Kiwi battler hat on is running one of it’s online readers views concerning the dispute between Sir Edmund Hillary’s children and the executors of their fathers estate, as proxy for the Auckland War Memorial Museum.

The original story is here. John Key has offered to mediate.

It appears that key facts are as follows:-

He bequeathed his personal papers with the proviso that his children would have access to the material as they saw fit.

A clause in his will stated further “that no other person, or corporate body may publish any of the material” without the consent of the Hillary children for 20 years after his death.

It is this clause and the museum’s apparent claim to intellectual property rights that is due for scrutiny in court. Sarah and Peter Hillary are bringing an action against the executors of their father’s estate in the High Court at Auckland next month.

Adam is no lawyer, but the interpretation seems to be relatively straight forward. The children have access and the right to control publication for 20 years. That would seem to suggest that the intellectual property rights are with the museum, but for 20 years they have to consult with and gain the agreement of Hillary’s children. The children have the right to access the material, but it is not theirs.

The Your Views comments thread is essentially full of comments saying the museum should let the children do whatever they want. Yet it would seem from the Herald article though subject to the legal consideration of the full facts which are not known, that Sir Ed quite clearly bequeathed the material to the museum with some limitations on what they could do for the first 20 years.

It was not clear from the article or a major TVNZ News item as to precisely what has caused the dispute. Though there was a brief reference to digitisation of certain material so that access could be obtained on-line. That would appear to be covered by the publication consent limitation. Is it the case that the children want no public access to the papers? Do they regard display of papers as publication? Have they and the musuem not been able to reach agreement on digitisation?

A former museum director, not interviewed on air,was quoted by TVNZ as saying perhaps not everything had been properly clarified to the family prior to Sir Ed’s death.

The matter now depends on the legal process. Though as so often in NZ the populist view is damm the museum who appear to have rights and let the children have the material. Adam would be intrigued to know why the children are so concerned about the intellectual property rights. As always in these instances the facts may not be what they seem to be at first.

The comments thread seems as well to contain a lot of dislike of the current director Vanda Vitali. Yet she and the trustees have a legal duty to ensure bequests are properly dealt with. They cannot alter willy nilly the terms of gifts just because family members want them to.

It is concerning that so few people commenting at the Herald had any regard as to the rights of the museum, and all presumed that Sir Ed would have wanted what his children claim. Then why leave the material to the museum? Why expect the museum to house and conserve the material at their expense without them having any ownership rights/

Adam is of the view that this story is only just beginning.

Advertisement