Copyright Reform Poll

[Greg Anos]

The interesting question will be what happens when the current 95 years reaches into the sound picture catalog. Which will happen in 3 years, when The Jazz Singer goes PD under the current rules.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hildea

I picked "The lifetime of the author, plus a number of years", but even better would be 80 (or thereabouts) years after the birth of the author. That would ensure income for dependents of the author even if the author dies young. And in those (rare?) cases when it's difficult to determine who the author is or when they died, it defaults easily to at the latest 80 years after publication.

80 years after birth would not work. The author could be over 80 or close to 80. 80 year after first copyright would work. So once it's copyright, 80 years later, it's in the public domain.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

Actually when the early sound pictures were looking at copyright expiration. 1929 to 1976 was 47 years, the expiration would be in another 9 years. As a matter of fact, it covered silents that were not already in PD, even though there wasn't much of a market for them. (1921 + 56 = 1977)

Hollywood was into foreign markets from the 1930's. Look at how you started to have latin american themed movies (musicals especially) in 1940, once the european markets were closed off with WWII.

They have been in the foreign markets, but the the foreign market didn't become a big money maker until sometime in the sixties and seventies. If you are looking at when movies go into PD, the key movie to look at is Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey Mouse talky, 1928. These days, I've read that Hollywood is actually making more money in foreign markets than in the US.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

80 years after birth would not work. The author could be over 80 or close to 80. 80 year after first copyright would work. So once it's copyright, 80 years later, it's in the public domain.

I'm not sure I understand you? If you're saying that 80 years after birth is too little because many people live longer, I'd be fine with, say, 110 or 120 years after birth.
I trust you are not arguing that publication date could be earlier than the author's birth date (at least barring time travel, which would complicate copyright terms considerably)

[ApK]

Originally Posted by hildea

I'm not sure I understand you? If you're saying that 80 years after birth is too little because many people live longer, I'd be fine with, say, 110 or 120 years after birth.
I trust you are not arguing that publication date could be earlier than the author's birth date (at least barring time travel, which would complicate copyright terms considerably)

I think the point is that measuring from birth is inappropriate and irrelevant. Why should protection of a work start to run out BEFORE the work exists?
People who create things late in life would need a time machine to enjoy the same protection as those who started early.
"Sorry Grandma Moses, you started painting too late, no equal protection under the law for you!"

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ApK

I think the point is that measuring from birth is inappropriate and irrelevant. Why should protection of a work start to run out BEFORE the work exists?
People who create things late in life would need a time machine to enjoy the same protection as those who started early.
"Sorry Grandma Moses, you started painting too late, no equal protection under the law for you!"

It's equal protection, just not equal results.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

I think the point is that measuring from birth is inappropriate and irrelevant. Why should protection of a work start to run out BEFORE the work exists?
People who create things late in life would need a time machine to enjoy the same protection as those who started early.
"Sorry Grandma Moses, you started painting too late, no equal protection under the law for you!"

We might also make the same argument as regards the unfortunate authors that die early - they end up with less copyright protection than those that enjoy a long life.

Anyway, date of birth runs into the same problem as existing copyright being based on when a person died: it requires extra information. Whereas date of publication is generally known, and if publishers would take even the most meagre amounts of care (and most do these days at least), then date of first publication is also generally known. The state of the author (whether alive, dead, undead or immortal), does not matter if we simply base copyright on when a work was first published.

And when it comes to copyright and its automatic invocation, simple trumps almost everything else.

[hildea]

I prefer something related to the lifetime of the author because to me, it's more clear. Any biographical entry will have date of birth and death, while publication date can be more tricky to find out -- especially now when it's not that unusual to publish a work for free online first, and then it gets picked up by a publisher and republished commercially.

For that matter, you've got artists like Edward Munch, who made several versions over a period of years of some of his most famous motives, like Madonna.

But yes, I see the arguments for using publication date as a starting point. And I suspect that an important reason why I prefer using birth or death of the author is that I'm used to it

Originally Posted by gmw

Anyway, date of birth runs into the same problem as existing copyright being based on when a person died: it requires extra information. Whereas date of publication is generally known, and if publishers would take even the most meagre amounts of care (and most do these days at least), then date of first publication is also generally known.

Like I said, if date of birth is unknown, we can default to using publication date as the starting point, as the author must necessarily have been born before publication.

Originally Posted by ApK

"Sorry Grandma Moses, you started painting too late, no equal protection under the law for you!"

One of my grandmothers starting painting late in life, I've got one of her paintings on my wall. I'll amend my suggestion to birth + 110, for her sake

[ApK]

Originally Posted by gmw

We might also make the same argument as regards the unfortunate authors that die early - they end up with less copyright protection than those that enjoy a long life.

One is the expected variance of all things due to the nature of reality, mortality and the unidirectional nature of time. It applies the same to all of human existence.

The other is starting a timer arbitrarily early when there is nothing yet to time, for no good reason (that I've heard so far.) Akin to saying product warranties start at birth, or your finish time in a race started counting at birth, or the time for cooking a two minute egg started when the egg was laid...ok, just being silly there, but the point is: copyright is to give the author full control over a piece of work for a time. There is no good argument I can conceive of for starting that time before the work exists.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by hildea

Like I said, if date of birth is unknown, we can default to using publication date as the starting point, as the author must necessarily have been born before publication.

1. Then just start at publication and simplify things with the same result.
2. I object to making it contingent on publication (see previous posts).
3. I will now write something and publish it in the name of an as-yet-unborn descendant JUST to make a liar out of you.

[4691mls]

When are we going to be able to see the poll results? Enquiring minds want to know

[issybird]

At the top of the poll in my browser it says:

This poll will close on May 1st, 2020 at 04:30 AM

That would be EDT, so adjust it to suit your local preference.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by ApK

1. Then just start at publication and simplify things with the same result.
2. I object to making it contingent on publication (see previous posts).
3. I will now write something and publish it in the name of an as-yet-unborn descendant JUST to make a liar out of you.

Simplicity is the reason that is why I proposed 100 full years from date of initial publication. A problem with basing on the life/birth/death of the author requires having to track down that information and track it to determine when a publication enters the Public Domain. Plus, it creates the current situation where publications released in the same year have a copyright that expires at different times, and you have to research to determine if a specific publication is still in copyright.

To me, using 100 full years from date of initial publication has the following advantages:

• It is based on an objective non-variable. When a publication is released in 1999 that is an objective date that won't vary.
• If it is not in the publication already, all you have to do is find out what year it was first published to determine if it is still in copyright.
• It is based on the date of publication, and it doesn't no matter how long the author has worked on the publication, the copyright begins when the publication is first released.
• It gives the author and his/her heirs adequate time to profit from the publication.
• It will eventually eliminate the issue of orphan works (where the information concerning the copyright cannot be determined), since it is likely that it can be determined when an orphan work was first released.
• It allows publications to predictably enter the Public Domain after a reasonable amount of time.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by ApK

People who create things late in life would need a time machine to enjoy the same protection as those who started early.

If they're dead how do they "enjoy" the same protection?

Originally Posted by gmw

We might also make the same argument as regards the unfortunate authors that die early - they end up with less copyright protection than those that enjoy a long life.

Similarly, how is their copyright protection any less after they've died? They're dead so they can't be bothered if their work is PD, assuming you don't believe in life after death and they're not in Heaven wringing their hands.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by hobnail

If they're dead how do they "enjoy" the same protection?

Consult an estate lawyer. And have him explain what an estate is. But again, the point is the work is what's being protected, there is no logic to starting a clock before there is a work to protect.