Quote:
Originally Posted by ficbot
A film about Jimi Hendrix that doesn't feature his music seems absurd to me, and imho proves what many on this thread are saying.
If you keep works locked up by copyright forever, you restrict creativity. The idea that people can use copyrighted works no problem if they just get permission so what's the big deal doesn't hold up when you start getting rights-holders *denying* the permission.
|
Who says the public deserves free use of someone else's works? Why is Hendrix's estate obligated to allow use of copyrighted material for every film about him that comes down the pike?
Quote:
|
Why should someone TODAY be unable to make a derivative work of Dracula if they want to just because a great-great-great-grandchild of Bram Stoker might not allow them to? It's absurd.
|
Because they can make other derivative works about vampires without infringing upon someone else's copyright. I thought authors were imaginative and creative?