Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumabjorn
I think copyright should be life. Period. Or maybe life plus spouse's life (I can see a case for that) but I don't see any reason that lazy kids should live of a parent's creativity. In certain extreneaous circumstances a special dispensation can be made in case of untimely death or children still too young to support themselves. Otherwise i see no reason to extend copyright beyond the life of the creator.
|
One of the reasons for life+whatever (whether that's a variable like it is now or "X years, whether or not the author died") is to *encourage publication* of works near the end of the author's life.
If someone wants to write their memoirs, and cares about their family... why publish? Why publish something that dredges up old conflicts and might be shameful or hurtful to their friends & family members, if the family doesn't get any benefit from it?
Why bother working on the notes for the next novel, that you know you won't finish before you die, if you can't hand it off to your kids or your best friend who knows the world best, but instead it becomes open for anyone to reprint and exploit?
Or: you finished the novel. It's there in your hard drive. Your family gets hit by a bus; your spouse is killed, you are hospitalized, and aren't going to live more than a couple of weeks. Why should you send it off to the publisher if the proceeds aren't going to your kids?
Keep in mind that the vast majority of books make modest profits, if any, and aren't going to put anyone's grandkids through college. There's a difference between "Rowling's children shouldn't be able to coast on her earnings for the next several decades after her death" and "Random Q Author's kids shouldn't get $80 quarterly royalty payments for the first ten years after their father died."