Slate answers the burning question: who owns the Unabomber's writings?
Federal prisoner Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the "Unabomber," is suing to keep the government from auctioning off his personal papers to raise money for his victims. Kaczynski wants to donate the manuscripts to the University of Michigan instead. Doesn't the Unabomber have control of his own writings?
... Does the government get the copyright when it seizes a prisoner's personal writings? Some legal scholars think it does, although Kaczynski is arguing otherwise. Even if the feds couldn't transfer the copyright on Kaczynski's writings, they'd probably be able to sell them. That's because they're not trying to reproduce them; instead, they're selling the papers as physical objects, along with other items he owned.
I think that's probably the analysis which would obtain in Canada as well. Although it's not precisely the same situation, it's worth noting that there are no "Son of Sam" laws in effect in Canada.** The most recent attempt to pass such legislation (which would have had the effect of transferring a convicted criminal's copyright in their writings to the Crown) was, apparently, in 1998, when Liberal MP Tom Wappel tried to get a private member's bill passed - the proposed legislation was rejected by a Senate committee, after having passed third reading in the House. This short piece sets out some of the arguments against a "Son of Sam" law. It appears that a number of US states have "Son of Sam" legislation in force, although the constitutionality of such statutes remains controversial.
UPDATE: ** Wrong, wrong, wrong. See here for details.
Comments