Quote:
Originally Posted by petrucci
...
It is also important for artists to be able to benefit financially from their efforts. Without copyrights of sufficient length, it simply does not pay to create works of art. This is especially true if those works are not immediately recognized, as has been the case with so many great artists.
Nothing is stopping people from making such stories for personal edification, as it would probably fall under fair use. However, there is an issue if you wish to profit from the stories. In that instance you would need to obtain permission from the copyright holder. Unfortunately, it cannot work both ways. If the author wants to profit from their work, then copyright of sufficient length is needed. (the length is dependent on the demand and value) Granted that there is copyright, then we cannot just take large parts of other peoples' creations, even if we want to make something new from them.
|
I'll just respond to the comments that were addressed to me.
The first comment is a strawman. No one in this thread is arguing for no copyright. Artists can benefit financially from a reasonable copyright period.
The second comment seems to be arguing a point I never intended to make, although I'm actually not sure what's being argued. My point was simply that a lower copyright period is useful for artists who want to create a new work in an existing setting (for profit even!).