[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Post-death length should be shorter.

Arts (music, writing, making movies, photography...) are one of the very few types of work in which an individual can create something, and then profit from that without doing anything else for their entire life.

Theoretically, it's possible for a writer to write one (1) book at the age of 25, and then finding that it hits the book market like a bombshell. It's a hit, and it *stays* a hit: an instant classic, selling and selling and selling, making the writer a 5 million each year. He does not have to work, ever again, and he will be able to support even his children and/or his grandchildren. All by writing ONE book. (For the sake of argument, assume that this could possibly happen.)

While "normal" people would need to keep working to keep income, I could accept that a writer who creates a hit that big, would profit from that until his death.

What I cannot accept is that after his death at (let's say, 85), his heirs will not only inherit a vast amount of money built up over the span of 60 years, but they will also inherit the copyright, for 2, maybe even 3 generations to come.

That the writer and his immediate family (children, etc) can live off of his works, even if it's only one book: OK, fine. It's his work after all. That 1-4 generations after him can live off of the same work is (IMHO) unacceptable, because these people didn't do *anything* to warrant that.

Let me introduce you to the at least three thousand year old distinction between "property" and "labor." Labor is something you do. Property is something you own. People will pay you for either. If you do labor, people will pay you for the labor, and not pay you if you don't do the labor. If you own property, people will pay you to use the property, and not pay you if they can't use the property.

Works of art aren't unique in being property - people who own stocks can make money from the stocks and pass them on to their kids. Business owners can pass businesses on to their kids. Landlords can pass their properties on to their kids. Etc.

Bill Gates founded a very successful company when he was very young; as a consequence of that, his descendants for the next several generations may not need to work. That's how property works (and if he hadn't given away 40% of his net worth, he probably could have gotten a few more generations out of it.)

Originally Posted by arjaybe

15 years, renewable only by the creator in 15 year increments. If the copyright is active at death, 15 more years. Humans only, except in the case of a trust.

Why humans only? Is it because you don't want authors to make money? Or do you have an irrational hatred of corporations?

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I like this a lot. I don't think I would include trusts.

Same question.

Do you understand that no individual is going to *ever* risk $300 million to make something like "Lord of the Rings?"

Corporations are not some evil boogey man that exist to oppress you. They are - seriously - the foundation of modern society.

Originally Posted by morriss003

50 years from the time the copyright is created.

I don't like this because there is the possibility that an author would still be alive when copyright was lost, and I don't think that the author should have to lose control of his own creation while he is still alive.

Originally Posted by Nightyume

I think it's a very complicated question.

Basically I think it should be something like this:

Artistic works - the copyright should belong to the artist until death. If there was a period with renewal system that would be okay as long as the renewal system was simple and the artist was properly reminded that their copyright was in danger of expiring with ample warning (otherwise people could lose their copyrights due to idiotic red tape). Upon their death I think that that the time of copyright should be fifteen years if the artist specifically leaves the copyright to their work(s) to someone. If the artist dies without their wishes being known, maybe due to accidents or whatnot, the family/significant other should be able to claim it for a maximum of five years if there is no evidence that the artist was estranged from the family (I personally wouldn't want most of my family profitting from anything of mine).

This seems really complicated, especially the death bits. I can imagine having giant court battles over whether or not someone was "estranged." If they are estranged, then they need to leave it to someone else in their will - that's great evidence of estrangement right there.

I would be in favor of some sort of simple renewal formula, valid until some life+period. If a copyright is actively being used (Lord of the Rings or Disney or whatever), I really don't see a problem with copyright not expiring until the death+ age is reached. These works are not abandoned and they are being used, and I really don't see much of a problem with that.

Where I do see a problem is in the less popular works that quickly go out of print and fall off the radar, but that are protected by copyright for the same term as works which may have been constantly in print and other media. Copyright has not made the works of Agatha Christie or Dorothy Sayers unavailable; it may have made the works of many lesser-known authors unavailable. Having a some sort of renewal (plus a small but not insignificant fee) would help prevent the problem of orphan works, while not taking away anything from the more popular works.

For corporations I think it should be based on their investment and their treatment of the creative types involved. But basically that the length of the copyright should somehow be valid until their profits reach a certain ratio in relation to the investment (i.e. 3:1 or 10:1 or whatnot).
For things which are not artistic and "benefit" society, it should be shorter (although this is more for the field of patents).

Again, what is the *advantage* of treating corporations differently? If a company takes a risk and invests hundreds of millions of dollars in a film, they will be able to keep the copyright for a long time if the film fails, but if the film is wildly successful, they will lose the copyright? Under this plan, we never get Return of the Jedi because Star Wars makes too much money and falls out of copyright.

I also think that if a charity held the copyright to some work(s) they should be able to keep it as long as the funds made from it were not abused (for example if a charity which helped runaway children had the rights to Peter Pan and the income that that generated was used for the children and not to pay "administrative costs" then they should be able to keep it).

Well, that's what I think in a simplified form.

I would hate to see the complicated form. And I think this would make it almost impossible to tell whether certain works were still under copyright.

Originally Posted by David Munch

I voted lifetime of the author. I don't see a reason for extending it further than that.
I firmly believe the author should own the work as long as he lives, but i don't see why his kids should.

I can think of a couple of reasons.

1. Do you also believe that all other property belonging to the parent should be confiscated on their death? Because I can't see a big difference between allowing a parent to pass on: (1) a house; (2) savings; (3) a car; (4) stock; (5) rental property; (6) a business; and (7) other personal property...but not (8) copyright.

I think people need to *get over the idea* that someone's kids are getting an unfair advantage over you be being able to inherit the rights to a book that mom or dad wrote. Kids should get - or not get - copyright for the same reason that the get - or don't get - any other property that their parents leave them. The kids are just as deserving (or not) of inheriting their parents $100,000 (say) in savings as they are of inheriting their copyright.

The other reason to avoid a life-only copyright term is because it is too unpredictable. This means that the works of older or ill authors will be devalued because it's likely to go into PD sooner than the work of someone younger. This also makes investing much money in copyright riskier, since you may not want to invest much money buying the rights to the Jack Reacher series knowing that if Lee Childs is hit by a bus tomorrow, you've wasted all of your money because the works are all now PD.