Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
So, from what you say, he's an editor of sorts, and partly biographer and critic? I can see how there's a compelling argument for him to take some recompense for that work, but I wonder how the rest of the copyright profits are shared out. How many are getting paid for nothing more than a fortunate bloodline?
|
Children have always been able to inherit their parents' wealth and assets.
If copyright protection ended at death, there'd be no financial incentive for anyone on his deathbed to write or compose or publish scientific results. Since the purpose of copyright law is to
promote progress, the ability to compensate heirs in the absence of the author is included.
Don't bitch about Christopher Tolkein, who has done tremendous work to keep his father's work available.
If you want to complain, take note of
Zora Neale Hurston's books. She died at a welfare hospital in 1960, and the rights to her books are owned by Harper Collins. A lot of the works of the Harlem Renaissance are still under copyright--and those copyrights are often owned by publishing houses, because that was the only way the authors could be published at all.
The big-name authors, whose works are still inspiring movies, are not good examples of the problems with copyright laws. The real problems are with less well known authors, whose works are being lost in the flood of new works and remakes of old works. By the time they're out of copyright and can be freely shared around, they will be so out of date as to be mostly meaningless. We are losing our access to our parents' histories because it's locked away in contracts by publishers, recording industries, and movie executives.