Quote:
Originally Posted by GA Russell
Elfwreck, I can't have any sympathy for a copyright holder who doesn't know that he is a copyright holder.
|
In the example given--if my family comes across this hypothetical book, which of us is the copyright owner? Or is it shared among all currently-living heirs? Is there some nice simple law I'm overlooking that establishes which child or children controls copyright when there's no will?
The Life+70 rule took effect after she died; her sons had no reason to expect they'd be copyright holders until 2049. If the previous law had stayed in effect, her book would be in the public domain now, and there'd be no conflicts about it.
I have sympathy with ignorant copyright holders because the laws about who controls copyrights are dense and convoluted; they were designed for corporate interests and it all got very very weird when everything was copyrighted even if not notified.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, legislation can set a reasonable royalty. Should the copyright holder sue, he would be entitled to what the law allows, not some whopping amount.
|
Legislation could set a reasonable royalty. Should, probably. However, whatever amount is decided as "reasonable" will be hotly contested; any politicians who proposed such a thing can guarantee themselves out of a job come next election.
One of the problems with the Google settlement is that it set the royalty, which would only apply to orphan works published through Googlebooks; other orphan works publishers would be subject to the full penalty of law, up to $150,000 per item or whatever the current limit is.