|
The other argument for a fixed copyright term is that authors and creators do not create in a vacuum. They were themselves enriched, educated and inspired by works which came before theirs and so as part of the social contract of copyright, their works are meant to fall into the common culture eventually so that others may benefit from and be enriched by them, without having to do so at the whim of corporate overlords or rights-holders who are not capable enough to make the work suitably available.
Of course, the author does do the work of creation and so should benefit from being able to control that creation during their lifetime. But to lock it up for three generations is not fair because it could prevent people from drawing upon it them same way the author themselves drew upon the work of others.
Of course, if the heirs want to later profit from it, they can do so regardless of copyright---they just would not have the *exclusive* right to do so. For instance, Anne of Green Gables is no longer in copyright, but Montgomery's heirs own the title to her house and they continue to (a house is a physical object that can be bequeathed indefinitely). So they can---and do---charge money for tours of the house, souvenirs from the gift shop etc. One of Bran Stoker's heirs, to use another example, published a Dracula sequel. I am sure the 'Stoker' name on there helped sales. And of course this new work is protected to that author for HIS lifetime. So why should he stop other people from profiting in the same way he did?
|