What If the Copyright Act of 1909 Was Still Law?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Soldim

Thinking about this issue -- anyone who knows what happens with copyright when one goes bankrupt? Would you loose it? Do creditors have ask for transfer?

A quick google turned this up http://www.meyner.com/CM/CreditorsRi...Articles18.asp but I'm not nearly smart enough to make any sense of it.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's true, of course. I was responding, though, to the previous comment that copyright has no relevance if a work is not published. I must disagree with that view, for the reasons I stated. Copyright can be (and often is) used to prevent publication as well as to encourage it.

Ok, simple change then: after the death of the creator, the heirs are required to keep it available or the copyright will lapse...

Or even: if it was once published, it should stay publicly available (after the death of the creator) or the copyright will lapse.

I'd even go as far as to say that a work can stay in copyright as long as it's publicly available in all current forms.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

Why are useful devices "only" protected for 20 years? Are the creative arts that much more valuable to society than devices? If patent-holders are compensated well enough after 20 years, then creative artists should have 20 years as well.

You can also read it that patentable things are more important to society and they need to be released to be fully useful. Art is not so important and for that it is easier to be influences by lobbyists and make absurd laws since art is not so important for society. It does not matter if we get less and worse art because of copyright laws.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by tompe

You can also read it that patentable things are more important to society and they need to be released to be fully useful. Art is not so important and for that it is easier to be influences by lobbyists and make absurd laws since art is not so important for society. It does not matter if we get less and worse art because of copyright laws.

That ides works in most places but we in the US have a somewhat usual problem. Out constitution says that copyright and patents are to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. If they don't do that well... problem.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

A great many more will be available from among in-print copyrighted works created in the computerized typesetting era. But books written in the 1930's through 1960's? Not so much, until such time, if ever, when they go under public domain.

Or we have a (preferably) legislative change that addresses the issue of orphaned works.

I also suspect Google has already caught a lot of those books in its scanning project.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I think you underestimate the legal costs of figuring out who owns the copyright in books long our of print....

Not really, I do recognize the costs and, unlike some people, recognize that they result in back catalog books costing more than $3 per book.

But I recognize the rights when they are attributable, think it's obvious that the back catalog will grow roughly in tandem with financial incentives, and think that once the orphan work issue is better resolved, availability will increase.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

And that's my major gripe against the current copyright laws. If they won't lower the years after death, at least they should add the clause: "or as long as it's publicly available" (and I'd like to add, in as many forms as possible).

The publication requirement would be nearly unenforceable in an era of print on demand and digital distribution.

And what qualifies "as many forms as possible?" Should video be available in DVD, Blu-Ray, VHS, Laserdisc and Beta? Should digital music be out in AAC, protected AAC, MP3, WMV, OGG and a dozen other formats that no one uses? If I announce a new media format tomorrow, are all publishers required to instantly adopt it, no matter how small my actual or potential audience is...?

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Everybody agrees that the copyright laws are to make sure that the creator will get his just reward. But, if it's not available, why copyright it as he won't get any revenue from it anyway?

Again, orphaned works needs to be resolved.

The problem is you have to structure it so that it doesn't constitute a back door to rip off the artist. E.g. let's say I am a photographer and I took a well-known photo of the Concorde way back when. Some unethical art director believes it will be cheaper to treat it like an orphaned work rather than find me, even if they know who took the photo; or perhaps the image is under an exclusive license.

In some cases the art director is just going to do it anyway, but an orphaned work system could a) provide cover for infringing uses and/or b) may encourage people to "infringe now, pay later" and at a lower cost than a lawsuit.


In fact, in this case it may be better for my client if the image is "unavailable" for further commercial use. A photographer or graphic designer may make an iconic image associated with the client that they choose to protect rather than make widely available.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

That ides works in most places but we in the US have a somewhat usual problem. Out constitution says that copyright and patents are to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. If they don't do that well... problem.

FYI, the preambulatory section of the Copyright Clause is no longer regarded as binding.

Over the years, the criterion in the courts has shifted to just "limited time." Even the arch-constructionist Scalia signed onto a 7-2 decision which included this in its decision.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Soldim

Thinking about this issue -- anyone who knows what happens with copyright when one goes bankrupt? Would you loose it? Do creditors have ask for transfer?

You could sell the rights in order to raise money to pay your creditors, but afaik it isn't required.

There were several big cases where musicians declared bankruptcy in an attempt to renegotiate music contracts, for example; they wouldn't do that if declaring bankruptcy required they sell or transfer the copyrights.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Not really, I do recognize the costs and, unlike some people, recognize that they result in back catalog books costing more than $3 per book.

But I recognize the rights when they are attributable, think it's obvious that the back catalog will grow roughly in tandem with financial incentives, and think that once the orphan work issue is better resolved, availability will increase.

I fear that in such a situation only the most popular 5%-10% of books out of a given year will be made available, maybe even less for smaller languages. From a point of view of cultural heritage, it seems rather unbalanced.

It also makes me wonder what is actually important for authors (for corporations, I can easily guess the answer) their books being read, or some pocket money for their grand-children? I fully understand that an artist has to be able to make a living and deserves to be duly compensated for his/her efforts; but I am wondering to what extend the large majority of authors who published in the 60s and 70s and who's works are not available now, and won't be in a long time because of copyright view the balance between 'having their works read' and 'being paid'.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

"Fixed form" is clearly the optimal date to start the copyright term.

How does copyright work for creations which never have a "fixed form". Let's say a songwriter composes, but doesn't write down, a song, which he then performs in public, but never records. I assume his song is still covered by some form of IP protection - an audience member who hears the song can't immediately go and record and sell his own performance of it.

/JB

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by jbjb

How does copyright work for creations which never have a "fixed form". Let's say a songwriter composes, but doesn't write down, a song, which he then performs in public, but never records. I assume his song is still covered by some form of IP protection - an audience member who hears the song can't immediately go and record and sell his own performance of it.

/JB

If someone composes a song and then sings it in public without ever writing it down or recording it in some fixed form, even at the performance, then no, it is not covered by any kind of copyright.

Anyone hearing it can immediately go and write it down and claim copyright in the song, even to the extent of preventing the original performer from using it.

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's true, of course. I was responding, though, to the previous comment that copyright has no relevance if a work is not published. I must disagree with that view, for the reasons I stated. Copyright can be (and often is) used to prevent publication as well as to encourage it.

I'm sorry, that is true and I mis-edited what I was writing.

It *used to be* true that in order to copyright something written, it had to be registered. Like a patent, it had to be submitted to an agency and a copy had to be provided for the (eventual) public good when it would have fallen into the public domain. By "something written" I mean book-like . I don't know about music and screenplays and theatrical plays, and the like...they _may_ have been considered copyrighted at the time of recording/filming/first stage production.

Software can get all the benefits of copyright, without having to provide a copy for the public benefit. (In this case, when I say "copy" I mean copy of the source code). A closed box program doesn't do any good, the public can't benefit from that in 95 or 120 years (or the author's death+ periods).

I should have been off to sleep about 2 hours ago, so at this point I think I'm just rambling and mopy...

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

If someone composes a song and then sings it in public without ever writing it down or recording it in some fixed form, even at the performance, then no, it is not covered by any kind of copyright.

Anyone hearing it can immediately go and write it down and claim copyright in the song, even to the extent of preventing the original performer from using it.

I believe this might be correct, though I'd need to review the copyright laws. And I still might get it wrong, since I'm not a lawyer.

That said, I don't see from a practical perspective how you'd exercise your copyright for a song that you can't prove you wrote.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Registration is still available, it's just not mandatory which, seeing as how there is a fee involved, is how it should be. It's still the preferred method of proving origin or ownership. It provides a verifiable paper trail.

You may have heard of "poor man's copyright" which involves mailing something to yourself? It's generally inconclusive in terms of proving first origin unless the other claimant has even shakier evidence, but it stems from the fact that it's cheaper than paying the registration fee. Though most people now know it's not the best method of creating a paper trail, it still happens.

Problem with that is it is only good for the copyright owner to prove they are the owner. Doesn't help others find out who the owner is.

[crich70]

Ah but if you work on an assembly line you are just one of perhaps 100's of
workers but if you are an author of a book or a photographer or other artist then you most likely worked alone on an individual creative act. There is a difference. I agree that the length of time for copyright should be standardized but at the same time we don't live in the same world as they did back in 1909 either. Back then media took a lot longer to be disbursed to the world for example, and at one time long before that artists were lucky to even get one payment for their works. Mozart for example would have been paid once for each of his musical creations and that one payment would have come from the original buyer of said work. His patron in other words. He ended up in a pauper's grave as I understand it. Or there was Van Gogh. He sold a grand total of one painting in his life I understand, now his works are worth millions.

Originally Posted by Kitabi

My fascination is with the randomness of the time allocated to copyright. I have no objection to copyright as an incentive to innovation but let me play devil's advocate anyway.

If I work on an assembly line to create a machinery that would be in use for 35 years, are my heirs entitled to payment for the next 35 years for my work if I were to die immediately?

What it boils down to is whether you kept your creation to yourself or if you were paid for it. If you were paid, you already converted your "valuable creation" to cash which you are entitled to pass on to your heirs. This is what happens in most other cases. However, if you happen to possess a copyright you can pass on BOTH the cash AND the copyright. Why?