Ah but if you work on an assembly line you are just one of perhaps 100's of
workers but if you are an author of a book or a photographer or other artist then you most likely worked alone on an individual creative act. There is a difference. I agree that the length of time for copyright should be standardized but at the same time we don't live in the same world as they did back in 1909 either. Back then media took a lot longer to be disbursed to the world for example, and at one time long before that artists were lucky to even get one payment for their works. Mozart for example would have been paid once for each of his musical creations and that one payment would have come from the original buyer of said work. His patron in other words. He ended up in a pauper's grave as I understand it. Or there was Van Gogh. He sold a grand total of one painting in his life I understand, now his works are worth millions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitabi
My fascination is with the randomness of the time allocated to copyright. I have no objection to copyright as an incentive to innovation but let me play devil's advocate anyway.
If I work on an assembly line to create a machinery that would be in use for 35 years, are my heirs entitled to payment for the next 35 years for my work if I were to die immediately?
What it boils down to is whether you kept your creation to yourself or if you were paid for it. If you were paid, you already converted your "valuable creation" to cash which you are entitled to pass on to your heirs. This is what happens in most other cases. However, if you happen to possess a copyright you can pass on BOTH the cash AND the copyright. Why?
|