Interesting copyright question

[Shaggy]

Before we get too caught up in the "tragic 25 year old's death" versus "porn star" examples that try to sway the discussion with emotions, let's not forget that the ones who are really behind the copyright fiasco and making all the money are the large corporations. They certainly aren't motivated by the death of a young author and the welfare of his heirs.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Shorter? I'd favour the longer. Otherwise you're adding far too much uncertainty into copyright length

Copyright lasting X years (nothing to do with the life of the author) removes a lot of the uncertainty as well. It also provides all of the benefits that copyright was originally intended for without the power/control/profit motives that it has been turned in to.

Figure out how long it takes for the average work to become profitable. That's how long copyright should be for. No more, no less.

[hal_9000]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyright lasting X years (nothing to do with the life of the author) removes a lot of the uncertainty as well. It also provides all of the benefits that copyright was originally intended for without the power/control/profit motives that it has been turned in to.

Figure out how long it takes for the average work to become profitable. That's how long copyright should be for. No more, no less.

agreed. most works rake in most money in the first few years, and then taper off. disney's mickey mouse are the exception, not the rule. there should be a fixed length, like you say, and then let people like disney apply for an extension if they want it. of course, it'll never happen, but it makes the most sense.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Consider someone who writes a great novel at age 25, and then gets killed in a road accident just after it took off, film rights, etc, etc. I'd think it quite reasonable for the royalties for several decades to go to the heirs.

I think it depends on what your argument is. The only motivation I can see is to encourage production but people do not expect to die in road accidents so I am not sure it holds in this case. Maybe for authors that are very old.

[Hellmark]

If we are to talk about assisting production of new content, to encourage it, there is little need for the heirs to get it. For the creator, keeping copyright helps them with the possibility of using the copyright.
For heirs, few ever even show an interest in creating new content, and already have their own life plans. If they did, they'd have their own copyrights to follow that path with.

[Penforhire]

The monetization of intellectual property is different than a carpenter's output. A table or chair is sold by the craftsman for full value. A story is not usually sold for its full value in one installment. That is why copyright duration is necessary, at least to compare the estate values of a carpenter and writer as suggested above.

[bill_mchale]

Just a couple of thoughts here.

I agree with the notion that it is not fair to compare a carpenter's work with an author's. Mostly because, it is possible that the carpenter might also have had unsold work at the time of his death.

To a certain extent, a copyright term must have a minimum duration -- this does not necessarily have to extend past the life of the author if the minimum duration has been reached, but it should protect the estate of an author who is unfortunate enough to die shortly after the publication of a work.

I am going to pull out a suggestion I have made several times before. Copyrights should have a fixed term or say 10 years (The exact total is flexible, but it should not be more than say 25 years). Copyrights can be renewed by the author as long as he or she is alive or by their heirs, for one time only. Now here is the final catch, the first renewal has a low cost of renewal. the second and subsequent renewals should cost 10 times (More if the period is significantly longer than 10 years) what the previous renewal cost. This way there is not only an incentive to publish, but also ultimately, an incentive to let a work enter the public domain. While the first several renewals might be worth while, after 4 or so renewals (If we assume the initial renewal costs say $10), only the most valuable works will be worth renewing copyrights on and eventually no work will be worth enough to pay the reregistration fee. Works that fall out of print will probably quickly enter the public domain.

The other advantage of requiring that works have their copyrights renewed periodically is that a database will be available that clearly indicates whether a work is still under copyright or not.

--
Bill

[fugazied]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Not to nitpick, but that was actually his widow, Mary Bono after she succeeded him in Congress, and she was quoting then MPAA president Jack Valenti

Yep I knew, that but I was too lazy to type the whole thing so just wrote Sonny said it. oops!

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

....it should protect the estate of an author who is unfortunate enough to die shortly after the publication of a work.
...

I still can't understand why...



I'd like a copyright linked to the author's life, and not transferable to nobody else (especially not to firms, establishmets or corporations...).

To die at 25 is a tragedy whatever the job is.
But we should not deprive the entire world from a PD property just in case...

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I still can't understand why...



I'd like a copyright linked to the author's life, and not transferable to nobody else (especially not to firms, establishmets or corporations...).

To die at 25 is a tragedy whatever the job is.
But we should not deprive the entire world from a PD property just in case...

how is 'the entire world deprived' if copyright is set at a standard 50 years after initial publication.

That way the creators family can benefit, but there is a clear date for when it will become available.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I still can't understand why...



I'd like a copyright linked to the author's life, and not transferable to nobody else (especially not to firms, establishmets or corporations...).

To die at 25 is a tragedy whatever the job is.
But we should not deprive the entire world from a PD property just in case...

Well there are a couple of reasons....

The average person is usually paid within two weeks of performing the work for their job. Authors on the other hand may not receive payment for their work until years after they have completed the work (Yes many authors receive advances, but that is the way the publishing industry works currently, there is no way to be sure it will still work that way 10 years from now). As a result a perod of copyright ensures that the author and his estate has a reasonable chance to profit from the work he performed.

By ensuring that copyrights can extend past the life time of the author, it provides publishers a reasonable incentive to actually publish the work of an older author. For example, lets assume that an author is in his 80s and is rather ill; he does have enough left for one last publishable work. If copyright ends at death, the publisher may decide to skip the novel since they will have very little chance to profit from their work before the work enters into the public domain. In other words, by trying to speed a work into the public domain, you might be ensuring that the work is never published at all.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by stustaff

how is 'the entire world deprived' if copyright is set at a standard 50 years after initial publication.

That way the creators family can benefit, but there is a clear date for when it will become available.

My only thought on this is that 50 years without any form of registration allows lots of works to be lost. Most works are on the shelves for at best a few years before they are replaced with newer works. 50 years is a term that is designed to protect that small minority of authors who have works remain in print for extended periods of time. I seems to me that a book that has been out of print for 45 years by the time the copyright expires is a book that might be lost before it can enter the public domain.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

By ensuring that copyrights can extend past the life time of the author, it provides publishers a reasonable incentive to actually publish the work of an older author. For example, lets assume that an author is in his 80s and is rather ill; he does have enough left for one last publishable work. If copyright ends at death, the publisher may decide to skip the novel since they will have very little chance to profit from their work before the work enters into the public domain. In other words, by trying to speed a work into the public domain, you might be ensuring that the work is never published at all.

This is still covered if the copyright is based on X years, with nothing to do with the life of the author. Whatever X is, whether or not the author dies has nothing to do with it. Publishers still have plenty of opportunity to make the work available and return a profit on it.

I don't think anybody has said that copyright should automatically end at death. But I don't believe it should automatically extend beyond death either. It should be for a fixed length, pure and simple.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by stustaff

how is 'the entire world deprived' if copyright is set at a standard 50 years after initial publication.

That way the creators family can benefit, but there is a clear date for when it will become available.

Why should the creator's family benefit? Will it encourage them to create more works?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Why should the creator's family benefit? Will it encourage them to create more works?

Consider it benefiting on behalf of the creator, if he/she is not around for long enough.

- Ahi