Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce
I don't like the scheme. Let's say I'm a moderate successful author and I've got an old backlist title that's selling a few hundred to 1,000 copies a year. The 20 year renewel is a no brainer, even though it's cutting into my earnings. A 30 year renewal may be difficult if my yearly income can't handle that sort of hit all at once. A 40 year renewal is going to be cost-prohibitive; I won't earn back what it cost me to renew the copyright.
But Hollywood can then turn right around and make a movie of my 40 year old book and not pay me a cent. And Hollywood can afford to wait that long. Why pay me a percentage when they can wait a few years and get the movie rights for free? Of course, then they're in a race to see who can make the movie first. Sure, the hot new books will get locked up quick, but with all the new titles entering into the public domain every year most authors won't stand a chance at a big payday.
I think copyrights need a set period of time... maybe 50 years, or maybe life of the author plus 10. But I don't like an every-increasing scale of renewals; it punishes the less successful while giving the others another decade or two of profits.
|
What if the work became dual licensed? Say after 20-30 years the work would be released under something like creative commons for non-commercial use with the copyright holder reserving the commercial rights for 100 years or life + 70?
Then the public gets to benefit from the work being available like it was public domain, while protecting the author's right to any commercial activity with their work.