Having said that, I can speculate that an author could stipulate that no changes may be made but I can also imagine that many may choose to allow flexibility.
I agree with the first half of your sentence, but not the second. If an author finalizes their work, then that's it. The publisher can choose to publish or not publish it, but they do not own the copyright on the work, and are not permitted to make modifications and then distribute what can only be considered an unauthorized derived work.
Granted, copyright holders may of course contractually allow publishers to do this. I can only assume this is the case for Dahl's works, as I'd be surprised if a major book publisher did something that would infringe on an author's (estate's) copyright. But I don't think this should be the default, and I'd hope and expect copyright law agrees with me.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/netflix-acquires-rights...
Awesome.
Netflix owns RDSC. RDSC had to authorize changes by Penguin. I'm sure you're excited about the new version, given your confident denunciation that was dead wrong.
Nope, not with the sold copies. Not to mention copyright terms in the US are ridiculously overextended by congressmen comfortably sitting in Disney's pocket. So no argument about "extension" plays anymore - they overplayed their hand so hard there it is not even close to something natural, it's purely "the law is what I can buy" now.