|
As I'm trying to write an answer to this, I'm finding myself uncertain of what I really think. Initially, I was thinking that copyright ought to have a similar term as a patent. 14-20 years. With patents, the period is (IMO) reasonable. If you create some new invention, you have a reasonable period to protect and sell your invention. By the end of the term you've either exhausted the usefulness of your invention, or someone else has invented a reasonable alternative/successor.
My initial thinking about copyright was the same: 14-20 years for you to sell your work and get exposure, etc. I have little interest in the idea that a work should support an author's family. A person works to support their family, not something they did 100 years ago. If I were a construction worker, a building would not continue to pay me and my family beyond the work that I do.
As I'm not an author, I don't really know what goes into writing (for instance) a book. Therefore I don't think it's reasonable for me to set the time frame. At the same time, I'm appalled that it will be 2023 before Mickey Mouse's Plane Crazy moves into the public domain space.
The reason public domain exists is to preserve and extend out cultural heritage. I think an extensive copyright gives license (no pun intended) to authors to abandon creativity in lieu of maintaining a single piece of work or a single series of work.
14-20 years may be too short considering how long it takes to create and distribute, but Lifetime+75 is way too long.
|