Duration of copyright poll.

[pshrynk]

I propose a different method. I was going to say "new" but there really is nothing new under the sun, so this has probably been tried before.

an indivdual produces something, say a book. There is copyright on that book for 40 years, as outlined in the JBU article.

Then, if that book is so huge that a corporate entitiy needs to own it forever, they pay a large, painful sum to an international fund that polices copyright to own that piece of work forever. Maybe even a yearly, painful sum.

That way, artists can "own" their own work for long enough to benefit from it and Disney can keep the Rat all to itself in perpetuity without screwing up the protections afforded to individuals trying to make art for the rest of us.

[axel77]

I'm against the death clause. No other ownerships starts/ends with death than copyright.

Also single authorship is more and more not the norm and multiple authorship is rising more and more.

I consider the timeframe granted should depend on the field of which the work has been done. That is, how on average you need to invest to get results, and how much on average earnings you get in return.

These should raughly equal + standard return of invest percentage + risk factor (also average depending on field).

Like IMHO a movie is a total different thing than a book is a total different thing than a comic strip is a total different thing than an article in a newspaper.

Why for example the copyright on daily newspaper ends aprox. 90 years after the day of the newspaper is beyond my understanding. And as somebody who had once to make historic work with newspapers, this felt redicolous, especially as the older once were easily available on the internet, but everything after that 90 years span was a pain to get by, to sort and so on.

For a daily newspaper e.g. one year copyright should be more than enough.
---
Thus I voted neither in this poll.-

[Ramen]

Motivation of copyright: Produce more works / Make the profession feasible for income

With this, I think (avg. time for a new work) * x would be a good choice. I do not like "death" + y because early works violate the above. Likewise, death + y or z is equally unfit because the longer one is chosen which again gives lifetime copyright for early works.

For avg. time for a new work, I took 5 years. As x I chose 3, so I took the poll option 15yrs. I do not know if this is enough time selling books to make enough profit but the reasoning is clear and I'm not fixed on a specific length, just the formula.

[pilotbob]

All the post about variable lengths depending on form or length of time to produce etc may have some valid arguments. The problem are the practical issues of determining these things.

Of, this is "really" a comic book, because its funny, but the author did have minor children when he died and the work took 6 years to write and 8 years after that till it was published. Taking into account that the authors birthday was during a full moon with jupiter rising... the copyright for this work will hence expire.... [Cray computer working]...

We don't want copyright law to become more complicated than the US tax law. No, a single fixed duration for any type of work that a copyright protects is the best choice. That much we should not change.

BOb

[slayda]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I'd say 40 years from publication, no extension, even if author still alive at that time. 40 years ought to be enough for the benefit to accrue.
After all a person in a 'normal' job gets around 40 years (in UK at least) to earn enough, save enough, provide for dependents etc.

...

G.

My thoughts exactly!!

[axel77]

[qoute]
Of, this is "really" a comic book, because its funny, but the author did have minor children when he died
[/quote]
I find this death and children arguments wiered if we consider ourself as market economy.

When I say as talented craftsman, okay I will build a house for you (say, take me 3 years of work). And you will pay me dependend on when I die and how many children I will have at this moment, how much they can work for themselves etc.

Sounds wiered if you look it at that way not? A house is a house, which an average person takes 3 years of work is worth X dollar/euro in our society. Independ when I die or how many children I have.

Now why is this so different on copyrighted material, which say a person takes 3 years of work?

[axel77]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I propose a different method. I was going to say "new" but there really is nothing new under the sun, so this has probably been tried before.

an indivdual produces something, say a book. There is copyright on that book for 40 years, as outlined in the JBU article.

Then, if that book is so huge that a corporate entitiy needs to own it forever, they pay a large, painful sum to an international fund that polices copyright to own that piece of work forever. Maybe even a yearly, painful sum.

That way, artists can "own" their own work for long enough to benefit from it and Disney can keep the Rat all to itself in perpetuity without screwing up the protections afforded to individuals trying to make art for the rest of us.

This is not good. At some point our "data" we have as society starts to become what makes us a society. Think of aristotele, da vinci, mozart, newton, einstein, etc.

No hugh summ whatsover should enable one person to own "identy" of society.

Copyright was always as its origin a limited grant to encorage people to share their work openly without fear of it to be copied.

[moz]

I like anything involving "until the death of the author(s)".

To me, that says that if the author is an unnatural entity that cannot die, copyright expires at the "+X" part, which I would set at about half an hour. I'm not so sure about the idea that there must be exactly one author, I'd rather allow multiple authors.

We will also need to revise this once people stop dying, obviously.

Perhaps 20 years would be a simpler idea.

[GeoffC]

Perhaps an author/artist could purchase a pre-determined length of time?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Elsi

I like a flat 50 years. Even if an author is 21 when his first book is published and is still living when it goes out of copyright, it is highly likely that he has written more books in the intervening 50 years and has potential income from those works.

Let's say you are 21. You write a novel. You reach the age of 72. Your work just became public domain. Some movie stuido decided to make a movie based on your work. The movie studio makes tons and tons of money from this movie. You are still alive, watching others make lots of money from your work and there is not a thing you can do about it. That is not fair in the least. You would be so pissed off. If the author is still alive, I do feel that he/she should be able to keep the copyright and make money on the work. I voted for 30 years after death for the work to become PD. But I also feel that once this 30 years after death has happened, any work that that author has written should be fully pD. And that includes someone else finding an unfinished manuscript, making it be finished and publishing it. So once the 30 years after death happens, that too becomes PD. So all those Tolkien books published after his death (even though they should have stayed unpublished) , would also go PD at the same time as the other books.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Perhaps an author/artist could purchase a pre-determined length of time?

That's been one of the proposals.

You have to register your work and every X years (the number is usually 10) you have to renew. You can keep renewing until you die.

This solves many of the issues that we have with copyright today.

The problem is that the content cartel finds this very difficult since they control so many works and most of the time they don't even have a list of the works they have the copyright for, it would take them a great deal of time and effort for them to even list them - let alone verify that they actually have the copyright for them.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Let's say you are 21. You write a novel. You reach the age of 72. Your work just became public domain. Some movie stuido decided to make a movie based on your work. The movie studio makes tons and tons of money from this movie. You are still alive, watching others make lots of money from your work and there is not a thing you can do about it. That is not fair in the least. You would be so pissed off.

Just like the authors who wrote the books that you based your work on were pissed when your book took off - and they got nothing for it.

No artistic work is "created" - in the sense of nothing existed before and now something exists.

All artistic works are based on life and/or previous works of art. So the act of writing a book is like building something new from a set of Legos. An author does not create the Legos - he simply assembles them into something that no one has seen before. And if an artist creates something valuable from his Lego set, the Lego company gets, and is entitled to, nothing.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If the author is still alive, I do feel that he/she should be able to keep the copyright and make money on the work.

I really don't think anyone has an issue with this idea. So long as the author has the option of releasing his work to the Public Domain prior to his death.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I voted for 30 years after death for the work to become PD.

There is no justification for any copyright after death.

You cannot entice a dead person to write more books.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Let's say you are 21. You write a novel. You reach the age of 72. Your work just became public domain. Some movie stuido decided to make a movie based on your work. The movie studio makes tons and tons of money from this movie. You are still alive, watching others make lots of money from your work and there is not a thing you can do about it. That is not fair in the least. You would be so pissed off. If the author is still alive, I do feel that he/she should be able to keep the copyright and make money on the work. I voted for 30 years after death for the work to become PD. But I also feel that once this 30 years after death has happened, any work that that author has written should be fully pD. And that includes someone else finding an unfinished manuscript, making it be finished and publishing it. So once the 30 years after death happens, that too becomes PD. So all those Tolkien books published after his death (even though they should have stayed unpublished) , would also go PD at the same time as the other books.

Say I'm the son if this guy who made that novel at age of 21. When he dies at 31, I have to watch the movie maker to get millions when my daddy would have got 62 at age, and I can do nothing about it. When my daddy lives until 33 and dies after that, I get millions on his legacy... because 33 + 30 = 66...

How is the fairness into this? I just need that person alive in some sort of way (with artificial respiration) to get a lot of money?

I build a house when I am 25, I sell it at age of 30. Then ground prices shoot up, and the new owner sells it at my age of 35 making millions out of it, while I can do anything about it. How is the fairness into this?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by axel77

Say I'm the son if this guy who made that novel at age of 21. When he dies at 31, I have to watch the movie maker to get millions when my daddy would have got 62 at age, and I can do nothing about it. When my daddy lives until 33 and dies after that, I get millions on his legacy... because 33 + 30 = 66...

How is the fairness into this? I just need that person alive in some sort of way (with artificial respiration) to get a lot of money?

Why do you believe that it's fair for you to receive compensation for work you did not do?

Originally Posted by axel77

I build a house when I am 25...

Ideas are not and cannot be "property". Any comparison to property is invalid.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Why do you believe that it's fair for you to receive compensation for work you did not do?

This is a different story an I beg for offtopicness not to discuss this here and now. I am btw pro succession and gift tax. However it was just an example with the death+x clause is not intelligent idea. You see my opinion on this matter a few posts before that one. Did you read it?