Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
With all due, respect... meh. 
1) IMO, automatic assignment of copyright is a huge boon for artists and writers. For example, a photographer might easily knock out 100 images in a single day. Should s/he fill out a form for each day's work? Or each image, perhaps? Or, a screenwriter can circulate a draft and numerous revisions, without needing to manage a ton of paperwork in order to protect that draft. Automatic assignment of copyright without the need to fill out paperwork is a tremendous benefit for individual artists. |
Concur. One of the benefits to the US finally becoming a signatory to the Berne convention
was automatic assignment of rights.
It's still a wise idea to register the copyright and pay the fee to the Library of Congress, but that's just because it formally establishes a date of copyright, and allows you to sue for a lot more damages if you find infringement. But it's no longer necessary to do that to
have a copyright in the first place.
Quote:
2) While copyright may be too long, the idea that these terms are "destroying culture" is hyperbolic and absurd. E.g. hip-hop is a form of music that heavily relies upon sampling other recordings, and has obviously flourished despite the requirement both to get permission and pay royalties on those samples.
Obviously there are issues like the status of orphan works that require further refinement via legislation. But we are also living in an age where the average life span is far longer than it was in the 1700's and 1800's, where 28 years was a common copyright term; ergo, it makes sense to have terms that are, at a minimum, longer than that....
|
You can point the finger at DisneyCo for a lot of the current pushes to increase copyright length. They were trying to insure Mickey and Company didn't lapse.
My own feeling is that the simple solution would be distinguishing between an individual and a corporation. Copyright is currently life + 50 years, or life + 70 years, depending on where you are. So how long does a
company like Disney live? As far as I'm concerned, they can have the rights to Mickey and company for as long as they exist, and that can be handled under current law without extending the copyright period.
The same would hold true for works done under a "work for hire" contract. In that case, the writer is working for a fee (and probably royalties), but the rights are held by the employer.
______
Dennis