Copyright Reform Poll

[theducks]

Originally Posted by haertig

Aren't many copyrights signed over to some publisher, and no longer owned by the author? I would say if a publisher holds the copyright, or any third party not the author, then it should expire very quickly. It the author retains the copyright, it could go for longer. But not TOO long.

I think that was the old way.
The more recent way is a contracted 'Letter of Copyright', where the holder has the right to 'Publish' in accordance with the terms. (Term s may include Geo, Media allowed, Term, Voiding the contract if not kept 'In Print'... )

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

How about instead of life + 50, make it the actuarial lifespan of the author + 50.

Actuarial lifespan = the average life span of people at the age of the author at the time of publication. Life insurance use this number all the time for policy calculations.

Example. Author X publishes a book at age 40. The actuarial life span of 40 year olds at that time is (say) 80 years. Copyright is then 80-40 = 40 years + 50 years, even if the author dies the next year.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Too complicated and too inaccurate. My father is 95 and will be 96 in December. My mother lived to be 89. So saying 80 is inaccurate. Also, in your example, the copyright will last 90 years instead of 50.

life+50 is a known quantity.

The problem I see with using "life" as one of the factors is that it requires having to track when someone passed away in order to determine copyright when the copyright expires, which might be difficult in some cases. With what I proposed (100 full years from date of initial release), it could be easily determined via a statement of initial release in the book's Copyright Page. It could be something like "This book was initially released in 2020."

Something I hadn't thought of when I initially posted on this topic is that it it would also make it easy to determine copyright for non-book publications, like newspapers and magazines. With this rule, if a magazine/newspaper was released in 1946 the entire newspaper/magazine would go into the public domain on 1 January 2048. Making death of the writer a factor in determining copyright would create the situation where some parts of a magazine/newspaper are in copyright while other parts are not.

[maddz]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

Something I hadn't thought of when I initially posted on this topic is that it it would also make it easy to determine copyright for non-book publications, like newspapers and magazines. With this rule, if a magazine/newspaper was released in 1946 the entire newspaper/magazine would go into the public domain on 1 January 2048. Making death of the writer a factor in determining copyright would create the situation where some parts of a magazine/newspaper are in copyright while other parts are not.

The problem with that is reprinted content. Would the copyright run from the date of the first publication of a piece or the date of the current issue? That could get messy.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by maddz

The problem with that is reprinted content. Would the copyright run from the date of the first publication of a piece or the date of the current issue? That could get messy.

I agree it could get messy, but one way to reduce the issue is for an article first published in 1940 (but reprinted in a magazine published in 1960) to put something like a "This article was first published in 1940." for the reprinted article. Thus, the copyright for the original material in the magazine would based on the year the magazine itself was released but the copyright for that article would be based on the year it was originally published.

Related would be the issue with comic books. Recently trade paperbacks, which reprint old and not so old comic book stories, have become a significant part of comic book publishing. The above could be applied to the individual reprints in the trade paperbacks. As an example, by the rule I suggested Action Comics #1 (first published in 1938) would go into the Public Domain in 1940. Although the issue has been reprinted at least twice, the copyright is based on the date it was first published and it would apply to any reprints of that issue and any of the stories (if reprinted separately) from that issue.

[ApK]

My problem with all the "first published" or "first released" schemes is that they ignore the important aspect of copyright that gives the creator control to NOT allow the work to be published or released. Just an off the cuff example: I write a memoir with explosive and incriminating info about important people I worked with. I don't want it published until those people are dead. My copyright begins the moment I put that work in tangible form, and says that my editor, my children, my lawyer, the banker with access to the safe deposit box I keep it in, whatever, have no right to publish it against my wishes. If my copyright doesn't start until published or released, I lose that control.

[MarjaE]

If it's a sole copy, then privacy law could cover it.

Patent and copymight law are written to cover published works, to encourage publication, which is why they focus on unauthorized republication or re-use.

As for the suggestion that it should extend past the life of the author, so they don't have to see people misuse their works, would anyone accept the same standard for patents? After all, many inventions see much worse misuse...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ApK

My problem with all the "first published" or "first released" schemes is that they ignore the important aspect of copyright that gives the creator control to NOT allow the work to be published or released. Just an off the cuff example: I write a memoir with explosive and incriminating info about important people I worked with. I don't want it published until those people are dead. My copyright begins the moment I put that work in tangible form, and says that my editor, my children, my lawyer, the banker with access to the safe deposit box I keep it in, whatever, have no right to publish it against my wishes. If my copyright doesn't start until published or released, I lose that control.

So?

Copyright is a contract between society and the author. If you don't publish, then society gets no benefit, thus no copyright.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ApK

My problem with all the "first published" or "first released" schemes is that they ignore the important aspect of copyright that gives the creator control to NOT allow the work to be published or released. Just an off the cuff example: I write a memoir with explosive and incriminating info about important people I worked with. I don't want it published until those people are dead. My copyright begins the moment I put that work in tangible form, and says that my editor, my children, my lawyer, the banker with access to the safe deposit box I keep it in, whatever, have no right to publish it against my wishes. If my copyright doesn't start until published or released, I lose that control.

Just an idea... Don't share that work you don't want published with your editor, children, lawyer and banker.

I'm fairly sure your lawyer publishing your papers against your will or your banker thieving your papers from your safe deposit box would break laws other than copyright.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Just an idea... Don't share that work you don't want published with your editor, children, lawyer and banker.

I'm fairly sure your lawyer publishing your papers against your will or your banker thieving your papers from your safe deposit box would break laws other than copyright.

No need to act obtuse. It was an example. Work is rarely created by a lone recluse in a vacuum. The aspect of control is important and needs to be maintained.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think a copyright needs to been a length of time. So we can know if something is public domain or not. 20 years only if it's not in print or eBook is not going to work. We won't know if it's PD or not. Something like life+50 or just 50 years are time spans we can use look up to see if the work is PD or not.

All that has to happen is that when the item is published, the author's age in included in the copyright notification. The rest could be calculated by anyone.

Life + 50 requires you know when the author dies. For less well known authors, that may not be easily found out.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

The lifetime of the author. Anyone can die early, not just authors. Why should their dependents get special treatment? When a street cleaner dies early, will his dependents get financial support for the next 25 or 50 years? Is the street cleaner's job less important than the author's? Do the street cleaner's dependents deserve financial support less than the author's dependents?

I would agree with this except for one proviso. There are still many traditional marriages where the wife never worked. If his sole source of income is his writing then if he dies before she does she would be high and dry. But his offspring shouldn't be sponging off of his work.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by hobnail

I would agree with this except for one proviso. There are still many traditional marriages where the wife never worked. If his sole source of income is his writing then if he dies before she does she would be high and dry. But his offspring shouldn't be sponging off of his work.

If your mother and/or father left you income from a family business or money from investments that were earned because of their work. would you refuse to accept the money because you would be sponging off your parents' work?

[haertig]

There are many sources of parents income that are not continued on to the kids after the parents death. Social Security, pensions, etc. Copyright payments should be like that IMHO. Copyright payments are not an investment. If the parents want that money to go to the kids, sure, they can invest their copyright payments in stocks, mutual funds, savings accounts - whatever - and the kids will indeed get that. But the payments themselves are not "investments" that the kids should be entitled to. A parent can work until they're 75, apply for Social Security, and then die one day before the first check arrives. Too bad for the kids, they don't get to keep drawing Social Security from the dead parents account. And they have to return that check that arrived one day too late. (Yes, I know when minor children are involved, they do indeed get some Social Security payment - but I'm talking the general case where the "kids" are "grownups").

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ApK

No need to act obtuse. It was an example. Work is rarely created by a lone recluse in a vacuum. The aspect of control is important and needs to be maintained.

Yes, but it is an example of a non-problem. The right to not be published comes up whenever copyright reform is discussed, but it's like arguing how many angels dance on head of pin.

If copyright changed to date of publication, there will not be waves of illegally stolen and published works.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

The lifetime of the author. Anyone can die early, not just authors. Why should their dependents get special treatment? When a street cleaner dies early, will his dependents get financial support for the next 25 or 50 years? Is the street cleaner's job less important than the author's? Do the street cleaner's dependents deserve financial support less than the author's dependents?

One problem with making copyright dependant on the life of the author. What would prevent me from assigning copyright for all of my fabulous, best selling novels to ZodWallop, Inc.? Any novels I write would be work for hire for ZodWallop, Inc. and that corporation need never die. That's how mainstream USA comic book publishers have worked forever.

That is why I prefer some set amount of time that is renewable some certain number of times. Works could come into public domain within an author's lifetime if the author doesn't think the book is worth protecting.