Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Only extremely popular books will have copyrights having even a small value, to the author's children, as an inheritance. I think the children of that tiny group of mega-popular authors are already getting enough inheritance (if their parents left then any) without having a continuing income from the rights. This isn't to argue for taking away all inheritance, just to say that it shouldn't be a reason for long copyright.
I've wondered where they, back in 1886, came up with the idea of Life + 50. I've never been able to find out the original justification, although there must have been one. Here's my hypothesis. Back then, successful authors often had much younger wives. And there was no government social insurance to support widows after their husband died. So, in my hypothesis, Life + 50 was to support the widow. Also, even if the husband and wife were the same age, back then it was common for one partner to live far longer than the other. Charlotte Bronte's husband, Arthur Bell Nicholls, was less than 3 years younger than her, but outlived Charlotte by 51 years. Copyright could, theoretically, have prevented Nicholls from becoming a public charge.
I could be wrong -- I'm probably wrong -- and would be glad it someone could point me to any original Berne Convention debate on why 50 years is the charm.
|
Your hypothesis is probably accurate. Also life spans were much shorter back then.