How long should a copyright last?

[samy2]

Not longer than 10-15 after publishing. There should also be free sharing for no commercial purpose before this time.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Jeff L

But if you walk into a book store, a copy of Melville still costs you money, meaning the publisher is making money, the retailer is making money, the distributor, the printer, and everyone else along the supply chain, everyone except the family of the author.

All of whom, apart from the family of the author, are actually doing something to make that physical book exist.

What other kind of property disappears like intellectual property. If you put money in a bank, buy a bond or shares in a company, or buy land, houses, or gold, all of that persists. You can leave all of that to your estate for the express purpose of benefiting your family. But you can't leave intellectual property, or rather you can leave it with the understanding that it'll vanish when the clock strikes twelve.

Two things:

1) Nearly all those examples can as easily (all but) disappear. The bank could go bust, the company you invested in could fail, there could be an environmental disaster near or on the land that makes it unsellable, the price of gold could fall through the floor. More likely in some cases than others and unlikely to wipe out all the value but still possible.

2) Maybe this is all a hint as to why thinking of copyright as intellectual "property" is at best a simplification and sometimes misleading.

Intellectual property is an artificial construct. It exists because we as a society have decided it is a good thing. You have to create laws to make it exist. You have to create restrictions on what people would normally do naturally and without thinking - copy and share. Unlike physical property - which to some extent is artificial too - there's no natural attribute like possession. I can physically fence off land, or lock my gold in a safe. Once I've done that it's "my property" because no-one else can have access to it unless I give it to them. With intellectual property that's not the case. If I write a novel and publish it I can only restrict who gets a copy with some sort of compulsion on others (i.e. the backing of law). And one person having a copy doesn't stop someone else having a copy, there's no natural "one place at a time" like there is with physical objects.

Once you accept that it's artificial then you can start asking whether it's still useful. It didn't always exist. Maybe it won't in the future. I think it still should. I think the terms should be shorter. I'm not sure how short though tbh.

I quite like the idea of an initial fixed term which is then renewable at intervals with increasing fees, so that the incentive to allow it back into public domain at some point increases over time. But I can see problems with that too.

[gweeks]

30 to 50 years from publication. I'd be happy with anything in that range.

Greg

[doctorow]

I chose "Post-death length should be shorter". Life + 70 years is a very long time, and it certainly doesn't benefit the deceased author. Why would it have to be in copyright for another lifetime? Who'd be the beneficiary and based on what reasoning?

[fjtorres]

Assuming that copyright length can be changed--which is doubtful--I'd favor life + 25 or 50 years, whichever comes later. That will provide for orphans and widows and posthumous works.
Corporate works? Unchanged. With trademark and all the legal tricks out there the nominal length of their copyrights are just that: nominal. In practice, the corporate types will always have a fully copyrighted work that protects their interests in a given franchise.
Dragging them in will only make any effort at change impossible instead of nearly impossible.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

15 years, renewable only by the creator in 15 year increments. If the copyright is active at death, 15 more years. Humans only, except in the case of a trust.

This, except no exception for trusts.

[arjaybe]

In response to this: "15 years, renewable only by the creator in 15 year increments. If the copyright is active at death, 15 more years. Humans only, except in the case of a trust."

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

This, except no exception for trusts.

I include trusts so the estate can manage the copyright during the fifteen years after death. It will sometimes be necessary if the heirs are not competent.

rjb

Originally Posted by Jeff L

When intellectual property goes public domain, everyone still makes money from that work except the author.

I have a couple of issues with that point. The first is that the author still has the potential to make money from that work, though I will agree that very few authors are in a position to do so. The second is that most out of copyright works sit in storage (or are destroyed) without generating revenue for anyone. Many of those works are only coming back to light today because of massive digitization efforts, and even then most of those works are going to remain so obscure that they will never make money for anyone.

For the most part, I don't care if those obscure works wither away. It is the important works that matter. Should works like "On the Origin of the Species" forever be in the hands of Darwin's estate? Should the words of Martin Luther King Jr. forever be in the hands of King's estate? Keep in mind, copyright pertains as much to Darwin's and King's words as much as it does to a Mickey Mouse or Harry Potter. While it would be sad to lose the mouse or the wizard, it would be a travesty to lose the words of the biologist and civil rights leader.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I have a couple of issues with that point. The first is that the author still has the potential to make money from that work, though I will agree that very few authors are in a position to do so. The second is that most out of copyright works sit in storage (or are destroyed) without generating revenue for anyone. Many of those works are only coming back to light today because of massive digitization efforts, and even then most of those works are going to remain so obscure that they will never make money for anyone.

For the most part, I don't care if those obscure works wither away. It is the important works that matter. Should works like "On the Origin of the Species" forever be in the hands of Darwin's estate? Should the words of Martin Luther King Jr. forever be in the hands of King's estate? Keep in mind, copyright pertains as much to Darwin's and King's words as much as it does to a Mickey Mouse or Harry Potter. While it would be sad to lose the mouse or the wizard, it would be a travesty to lose the words of the biologist and civil rights leader.

While the author may be in a position to make money from the work, not any more so than anyone else, which doesn't seem right somehow.

Perhaps a fair way of doing it would be to make the text itself public domain earlier, but profit that was made by selling the txt in any form must be shared with the author and heirs for a longer period. My overall impression is that many opponents of copyright (not necessarily here on MR) generally want either free books, preferably bestsellers or want to profit from these books. Not blaming them it is often human nature to want something for nothing. Lots of stuff I would like if they were giving it away

And whether the works mentioned by you should be under perpetual copyright is questionable from more than one direction. Generally they aren't. And if they are, but are made available to the public for a reasonable amount, or as educational or library material is that such a tragedy? Does that stop the world from advancing? Perhaps it does, I just don't see it that way.

Helen

[Tarana]

Most copyrights are held by companies, not the writers. Did you know that? Many, many contracts in the past never revert rights back to the author. That was supposed to change with a law that went in this year.

[arjaybe]

It was publishers who petitioned Queen Anne to enact copyright law in the first place, not writers.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

While the author may be in a position to make money from the work, not any more so than anyone else, which doesn't seem right somehow.

In the context of this thread, don't these authors tend to be dead?

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Corporate works? Unchanged. With trademark and all the legal tricks out there the nominal length of their copyrights are just that: nominal. In practice, the corporate types will always have a fully copyrighted work that protects their interests in a given franchise.
Dragging them in will only make any effort at change impossible instead of nearly impossible.

It's interesting-the corporate works I've had trouble with are out-of-print technical manuals. I guess there's a lot of stuff I never thought about copyright applying to-probably because so few people want copies of hundred-year-old contracts or memos. But copyright does apply to those just as it does to books. That's one of the biggest problems with lawmakers-they tend to make laws for the most common situations without understanding that a law must apply to *all* situations.

[David Munch]

I voted lifetime of the author. I don't see a reason for extending it further than that.
I firmly believe the author should own the work as long as he lives, but i don't see why his kids should.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Post-death length should be shorter.

Arts (music, writing, making movies, photography...) are one of the very few types of work in which an individual can create something, and then profit from that without doing anything else for their entire life.

Theoretically, it's possible for a writer to write one (1) book at the age of 25, and then finding that it hits the book market like a bombshell. It's a hit, and it *stays* a hit: an instant classic, selling and selling and selling, making the writer a 5 million each year. He does not have to work, ever again, and he will be able to support even his children and/or his grandchildren. All by writing ONE book. (For the sake of argument, assume that this could possibly happen.)

While "normal" people would need to keep working to keep income, I could accept that a writer who creates a hit that big, would profit from that until his death.

What I cannot accept is that after his death at (let's say, 85), his heirs will not only inherit a vast amount of money built up over the span of 60 years, but they will also inherit the copyright, for 2, maybe even 3 generations to come.

That the writer and his immediate family (children, etc) can live off of his works, even if it's only one book: OK, fine. It's his work after all. That 1-4 generations after him can live off of the same work is (IMHO) unacceptable, because these people didn't do *anything* to warrant that.

Let me introduce you to the at least three thousand year old distinction between "property" and "labor." Labor is something you do. Property is something you own. People will pay you for either. If you do labor, people will pay you for the labor, and not pay you if you don't do the labor. If you own property, people will pay you to use the property, and not pay you if they can't use the property.

Works of art aren't unique in being property - people who own stocks can make money from the stocks and pass them on to their kids. Business owners can pass businesses on to their kids. Landlords can pass their properties on to their kids. Etc.

Bill Gates founded a very successful company when he was very young; as a consequence of that, his descendants for the next several generations may not need to work. That's how property works (and if he hadn't given away 40% of his net worth, he probably could have gotten a few more generations out of it.)

Originally Posted by arjaybe

15 years, renewable only by the creator in 15 year increments. If the copyright is active at death, 15 more years. Humans only, except in the case of a trust.

Why humans only? Is it because you don't want authors to make money? Or do you have an irrational hatred of corporations?

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I like this a lot. I don't think I would include trusts.

Same question.

Do you understand that no individual is going to *ever* risk $300 million to make something like "Lord of the Rings?"

Corporations are not some evil boogey man that exist to oppress you. They are - seriously - the foundation of modern society.

Originally Posted by morriss003

50 years from the time the copyright is created.

I don't like this because there is the possibility that an author would still be alive when copyright was lost, and I don't think that the author should have to lose control of his own creation while he is still alive.

Originally Posted by Nightyume

I think it's a very complicated question.

Basically I think it should be something like this:

Artistic works - the copyright should belong to the artist until death. If there was a period with renewal system that would be okay as long as the renewal system was simple and the artist was properly reminded that their copyright was in danger of expiring with ample warning (otherwise people could lose their copyrights due to idiotic red tape). Upon their death I think that that the time of copyright should be fifteen years if the artist specifically leaves the copyright to their work(s) to someone. If the artist dies without their wishes being known, maybe due to accidents or whatnot, the family/significant other should be able to claim it for a maximum of five years if there is no evidence that the artist was estranged from the family (I personally wouldn't want most of my family profitting from anything of mine).

This seems really complicated, especially the death bits. I can imagine having giant court battles over whether or not someone was "estranged." If they are estranged, then they need to leave it to someone else in their will - that's great evidence of estrangement right there.

I would be in favor of some sort of simple renewal formula, valid until some life+period. If a copyright is actively being used (Lord of the Rings or Disney or whatever), I really don't see a problem with copyright not expiring until the death+ age is reached. These works are not abandoned and they are being used, and I really don't see much of a problem with that.

Where I do see a problem is in the less popular works that quickly go out of print and fall off the radar, but that are protected by copyright for the same term as works which may have been constantly in print and other media. Copyright has not made the works of Agatha Christie or Dorothy Sayers unavailable; it may have made the works of many lesser-known authors unavailable. Having a some sort of renewal (plus a small but not insignificant fee) would help prevent the problem of orphan works, while not taking away anything from the more popular works.

For corporations I think it should be based on their investment and their treatment of the creative types involved. But basically that the length of the copyright should somehow be valid until their profits reach a certain ratio in relation to the investment (i.e. 3:1 or 10:1 or whatnot).
For things which are not artistic and "benefit" society, it should be shorter (although this is more for the field of patents).

Again, what is the *advantage* of treating corporations differently? If a company takes a risk and invests hundreds of millions of dollars in a film, they will be able to keep the copyright for a long time if the film fails, but if the film is wildly successful, they will lose the copyright? Under this plan, we never get Return of the Jedi because Star Wars makes too much money and falls out of copyright.

I also think that if a charity held the copyright to some work(s) they should be able to keep it as long as the funds made from it were not abused (for example if a charity which helped runaway children had the rights to Peter Pan and the income that that generated was used for the children and not to pay "administrative costs" then they should be able to keep it).

Well, that's what I think in a simplified form.

I would hate to see the complicated form. And I think this would make it almost impossible to tell whether certain works were still under copyright.

Originally Posted by David Munch

I voted lifetime of the author. I don't see a reason for extending it further than that.
I firmly believe the author should own the work as long as he lives, but i don't see why his kids should.

I can think of a couple of reasons.

1. Do you also believe that all other property belonging to the parent should be confiscated on their death? Because I can't see a big difference between allowing a parent to pass on: (1) a house; (2) savings; (3) a car; (4) stock; (5) rental property; (6) a business; and (7) other personal property...but not (8) copyright.

I think people need to *get over the idea* that someone's kids are getting an unfair advantage over you be being able to inherit the rights to a book that mom or dad wrote. Kids should get - or not get - copyright for the same reason that the get - or don't get - any other property that their parents leave them. The kids are just as deserving (or not) of inheriting their parents $100,000 (say) in savings as they are of inheriting their copyright.

The other reason to avoid a life-only copyright term is because it is too unpredictable. This means that the works of older or ill authors will be devalued because it's likely to go into PD sooner than the work of someone younger. This also makes investing much money in copyright riskier, since you may not want to invest much money buying the rights to the Jack Reacher series knowing that if Lee Childs is hit by a bus tomorrow, you've wasted all of your money because the works are all now PD.