# Do copyrights last too long? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2002, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291 "2002-11-23T02:20:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/121 "2002-11-30T20:43:01Z")
The odd thing will come when there are “quantum” series of unauthorized sequels to works in the public domain. For example, can you imagine a near future in which one line of GWTW sequels has Scarlet as a female railroad magnate in 1880s San Francisco while another has her teaming up with Sherlock and Watson to trap Jack the Ripper and yet another has her son, Gerald Butler, flying to Saturn in the 1920s? And lets not even go to where the Lord of the Rings characters will be taken once every hack author of a really bad STAR TREK dime novel is able to have a go at them. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/122 "2002-11-30T22:31:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sampiro \* > \*\*And lets not even go to where the Lord of the Rings characters will be taken once every hack author of a really bad STAR TREK dime novel is able to have a go at them. \*\* Yeah, so? If I wanted to write “The Additional Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” or “Oliver Twist teams up with Sherlock Holmes” or whatever else, I doubt that anybody would take me seriously. Hell, I doubt anyone would bother reading it. But what if it was REALLY good and became a bestseller? Should I be denied that right just because what I may write would probably suck? ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/123 "2002-11-30T23:43:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\* > If you indeed want to encourage artists and authors to continue to _have the time_ to work at their art, it’s probably best that they be able to _afford_ the time. And that won’t happen if they haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell (in most instances) of making any money at their work. Which is what will happen if the copyright law were to be changed in the way you prefer. > \*\* Sorry, **yosemitebabe** , but I just don’t see that happening. Very few artists produce works so valuable that the public is willing to pay **anything** for them 20 or 30 years after initial publication. (How many 60’s best-sellers are still in print today? What percentage of movies made in the 1970’s would still draw an appreciable audience if re-released today? How many of the current music hits will still be played on the ‘golden Oldies’ stations 20 years from now?) Only a handful of artists in any field therefore derive **any** benefits from copyright laws that extend copyright beyond 30 years; and by definition, **none** benefit from laws that extend the terms of copyright past their deaths (dead people generally have very little use for money, and for some reason they don’t seem to respond to incentives to produce more artwork). Most artists are going to have to bust their asses to make a living in their field **regardless** of the length of time their work is copyrighted; only a handful will ever be able to sit back and live off the proceeds from the one or two masterpieces they managed to produce during their careers. The extremely long copyright period current law sets was not passed to benefit the original artists; it was designed to benefit corporations, which (being potentially immortal) **can** benefit from copyright periods extending beyond the normal human lifespan. Unfortunately, allowing corporations to endlessly milk the copyright cash-cow impoverishes the public domain, and in the end this lessens the overall quality of art available to society in the future. Life of the artist or 50 years (whichever is longer) seems to me to offer more than reasonable amounts of protection to the artist; life of the artist + 70 years is ridiculous. No work that was produced before I was even born should still be under copyright protection when I die of old age; that defies the essential meaning of “limited copyright”. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/124 "2002-12-01T05:36:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by artemis \* > Sorry, **yosemitebabe** , but I just don’t see that happening. Not in every instance, but it some instances. There _are_ photos, artworks and books from the '60s still being published. Surely you are aware of this? > [@](#): > > Very few artists produce works so valuable that the public is willing to pay **anything** for them 20 or 30 years after initial publication. And when that is the case, what _value_ do these works have to anyone else? If no one else wants to see them, who is it hurting if the original author retains rights? On the off-chance that perhaps one day their particular brand of work becomes in vogue again? > [@](#): > > (How many 60’s best-sellers are still in print today? I can think of specific art books, music, and novels that were printed in the '60s and are _still_ in print. They don’t have to be _best sellers_ to bring in some money for the copyright owner. Surely you are aware of this? You _do_ realize that books, art and music older than 30 years old still hold interest for parts of society? > [@](#): > > What percentage of movies made in the 1970’s would still draw an appreciable audience if re-released today? Are you seriously trying to tell me that '70s movies have no value? On DVD? TV? VHS? You’re _kidding_, right? (Hint: “Star Wars” was released in 1977.) > [@](#): > > How many of the current music hits will still be played on the ‘golden Oldies’ stations 20 years from now?) Are you kidding? So are you trying to imply that 20 - 30 year old music is no longer being published and sold? That _no one_ is making a profit from these works, in any form? > [@](#): > > Only a handful of artists in any field therefore derive **any** benefits from copyright laws that extend copyright beyond 30 years; How do you know that, for sure? There are a lot of lesser-known artists who make a bit here, a bit there from older works. Like the freelance photographers I brought up before. And if no one gives a damn about these old, forgotten and neglected works, how is it hurting the rest of us if the orignal creator _keeps rights?_ Obviously no one else wants the work, so why can’t _they_ keep it? > [@](#): > > and by definition, **none** benefit from laws that extend the terms of copyright past their deaths (dead people generally have very little use for money, and for some reason they don’t seem to respond to incentives to produce more artwork). But their heirs (the ones I described above, the ones that helped contribute and possibly finance the artist) do benefit from an extended copyright law. > [@](#): > > Most artists are going to have to bust their asses to make a living in their field **regardless** of the length of time their work is copyrighted; Exactly true. So when any of these artists have a few works that occasionally make money (amongst the _many_ they are busting their ass to produce), you’d prefer that they not get any profits off of them after a while? It’s better for a publishing company to make all the money instead? > [@](#): > > only a handful will ever be able to sit back and live off the proceeds from the one or two masterpieces they managed to produce during their careers. Who is talking about “sitting back”? They keep on producing work, in hopes that the next one (and then the next one) will make money. A few will make enough money steadily, so it’ll help balance out the time and effort they spend working on works that don’t make money. Do you want them to not get anything (after a while) from their occasional money-makers? Why? > [@](#): > > The extremely long copyright period current law sets was not passed to benefit the original artists; it was designed to benefit corporations, which (being potentially immortal) **can** benefit from copyright periods extending beyond the normal human lifespan. And I’ve already conceded, that if the laws can target these kind of entities, while not penalizing the artist who merely wants to keep rights to their own work throughout their lifetime (and for their heirs, for a spell) then I’m all for that. I just don’t want to see the “small fry” get pushed out in the zeal to prevent Disney from profiting. > [@](#): > > Life of the artist or 50 years (whichever is longer) seems to me to offer more than reasonable amounts of protection to the artist; life of the artist + 70 years is ridiculous. Most of us have already conceded that 70 years after death is not necessary. I think that Life of Artist or 50 years is _almost_ acceptable, as long as some worthy heirs are able to file for an extension past that point. There are those on this thread who see these creative works as not being too different from staircase building, and seem to think that only a few years past the creation date is sufficient for copyright. And sorry, that will NOT DO at all. ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/125 "2002-12-01T06:37:32Z")
::raises hand:: We receive royalties from a book published almost 20 years ago. Following the weird logic epoused by some here, in about 6 months time any royalties earned by that book would be held by the publisher and we’d get nothing. Huh? How does that make sense? Some of you don’t seem to realise that the effect of sticking books into the public domain in a short period of time would simply mean the author/illustrator would get zilch while the publisher continued to profit. Does the right of people to write fan fic/ slash override the right of the originator of a creative work? Many, many authors work with fans and the books are published. Look at Anne McCaffrey and Marion Zimmer Bradley. They actively encouraged fans to write fan fic. Other authors don’t and I’d maintain that is their right. If I develop a world, I don’t see why I should be forced to allow others to take the story arc in ways I had never foreseen or which do not fit my image of my work. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/126 "2002-12-01T06:51:20Z")
Long reply, so brace yourself. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > **Not in every instance, but it some instances. There _are_ photos, artworks and books from the '60s still being published. Surely you are aware of this?** Of course - as I said, these works are a MINORITY. Most artwork does not endure through the ages. > [@](#): > > **And when that is the case, what _value_ do these works have to anyone else? If no one else wants to see them, who is it hurting if the original author retains rights? On the off-chance that perhaps one day their particular brand of work becomes in vogue again?** Most people don’t care about those works - but a few might. Copyright laws harm those few by increasing the costs of publication (since the printer has to pay a license fee and/or royalties to the copyright owner), which can make the works unprofitable to reproduce in small numbers. More importantly, copyright inhibits the ability of later artists to “play with” and transform an almost-forgotten work to produce something new. > [@](#): > > **I can think of specific art books, music, and novels that were printed in the '60s and are _still_ in print. They don’t have to be _best sellers_ to bring in some money for the copyright owner. Surely you are aware of this? You _do_ realize that books, art and music older than 30 years old still hold interest for parts of society?Are you seriously trying to tell me that '70s movies have no value? On DVD? TV? VHS? You’re _kidding_, right? (Hint: “Star Wars” was released in 1977.) Are you kidding? So are you trying to imply that 20 - 30 year old music is no longer being published and sold? That _no one_ is making a profit from these works, in any form?How do you know that, for sure? There are a lot of lesser-known artists who make a bit here, a bit there from older works. Like the freelance photographers I brought up before. And if no one gives a damn about these old, forgotten and neglected works, how is it hurting the rest of us if the orignal creator _keeps rights?_ Obviously no one else wants the work, so why can’t _they_ keep it?But their heirs (the ones I described above, the ones that helped contribute and possibly finance the artist) do benefit from an extended copyright law.** See my answers above - MOST artwork is mediocre at best, and loses commercial value over time (STAR WARS, George Gershwin’s music, Ansel Adams’s photographs, etc. are the exceptions that prove the rule). Copyright serves to give monopoly control to the copyright holder - and monopolies act to drive up prices and restrict distribution, which is not in the best interest of the public at large, especially in the case of works that have a limited audience. And remember, the argument that has been raised in this thread isn’t that there should be NO copyright laws, but rather that the current copyright periods (which extend far past the lifetime of the original creator) are too long. I personally have no problem with copyrights lasting for the life of the original artist. > [@](#): > > **Exactly true. So when any of these artists have a few works that occasionally make money (amongst the _many_ they are busting their ass to produce), you’d prefer that they not get any profits off of them after a while? It’s better for a publishing company to make all the money instead?Who is talking about “sitting back”? They keep on producing work, in hopes that the next one (and then the next one) will make money. A few will make enough money steadily, so it’ll help balance out the time and effort they spend working on works that don’t make money. Do you want them to not get anything (after a while) from their occasional money-makers? Why?And I’ve already conceded, that if the laws can target these kind of entities, while not penalizing the artist who merely wants to keep rights to their own work throughout their lifetime (and for their heirs, for a spell) then I’m all for that. I just don’t want to see the “small fry” get pushed out in the zeal to prevent Disney from profiting. > Most of us have already conceded that 70 years after death is not necessary. I think that Life of Artist or 50 years is _almost_ acceptable, as long as some worthy heirs are able to file for an extension past that point.** Then you have no argument with me. But if most of us have conceded that life of the artist + 70 years isn’t necessary (and is probablyy detrimental overall, because of the inhhibiting effect such a long term of copyright has on production of new art), then why have copyrights been extended to such lengths? The answer is simple: Because it benefits large corporations, who don’t care about the effects lengthy copyrights have on the production of art. > [@](#): > > \*\*There are those on this thread who see these creative works as not being too different from staircase building, and seem to think that only a few years past the creation date is sufficient for copyright. And sorry, that will NOT DO at all. \*\* I’ve already said that I’m fine with copyright lasting for the lifetime of the author, but I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here for a moment, and ask why WON’T it do? Society got along perfectly well for most of history with either no copyrights at all, or only very short copyright periods; I don’t notice a dearth of great art from the past. Do you honestly think that people would stop writing novels, making music, painting, ect., if copyrights were radically shortened? All it might do is make it less likely that an artist could make a living **solely** by practicing his/her art - but since when does society owe anyone a guarentee that they’ll make a living doing something they enjoy? I have a hard time weeping for the poor artist who’s forced to take a day job and work on his art in his spare time, just as I have a hard time weeping for the girl who wants to become a fashion model but who’s not quite pretty enough to make a living at it, or the boy who wants to play professional baseball but ends up studying accounting instead because his curveball isn’t good enough for the major leagues. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/127 "2002-12-01T07:14:45Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Primaflora \* \*\*::raises hand:: We receive royalties from a book published almost 20 years ago. Following the weird logic epoused by some here, in about 6 months time any royalties earned by that book would be held by the publisher and we’d get nothing. Huh? How does that make sense? Some of you don’t seem to realise that the effect of sticking books into the public domain in a short period of time would simply mean the author/illustrator would get zilch while the publisher continued to profit. \*\* [QUOTE] But you’ve forgotten to mention another important effect - once a work goes into public domain, **any** publisher is free to publish that work. The artist may not benefit, but the public certainly might, because such competition can both bring down prices and increase the likelihood of a particular work being available. Copyright isn’t supposed to be based simply on what produces the most economic benefit to the artist, which is something you and **yosemitebabe** don’t seem to accept. Instead, it’s an attempt to balance what benefits the artist with what benefits society at large. Too long a copyright period is just as undesirable in the end as too short a copyright period. > [@](#): > > \*\*Does the right of people to write fan fic/ slash override the right of the originator of a creative work? Many, many authors work with fans and the books are published. Look at Anne McCaffrey and Marion Zimmer Bradley. They actively encouraged fans to write fan fic. Other authors don’t and I’d maintain that is their right. If I develop a world, I don’t see why I should be forced to allow others to take the story arc in ways I had never foreseen or which do not fit my image of my work. \*\* How does the production of new stories based on your original book hurt your work? Does the fan fiction mysteriously cause the words on the page of your original book to change, so that future readers will no longer be able to see your work? If another person, using your characters, writes something radically different from what you were planning to do with them, does this somehow prevent you from writing the story arc you’d originally envisioned? And if you’re going to argue solely from the standpoint of economics, then you’ll have to concede that while fanfiction might in some cases decrease the sales of your original, it can equally well **increase** interest in the original book. Any economic argument cuts both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/128 "2002-12-01T07:21:56Z")
I’m guessing that the copyright period in U.S. law of 70 years after the author’s death was chosen to represent the full lifetime of the author’s children, even if the youngest child was born near the time of the author’s death. Yes, relatively few copyrighted works are renumerative for that length of time, but keep in mind too that few people have any interest in making _artistically_ derivative works from the vast majority of copyrighted works, either. _By far,_ the big winners in shortening the period of copyright after the author’s death are those (e.g., publishers, distributors) who simply want to _economically_ gain by using the works of others. **Primaflora** brought this up, and it needs to be emphasized. Keep in mind who the money would be taken _from_, and where most of it would be going _to_. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/129 "2002-12-01T07:33:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by artemis \* > Of course - as I said, these works are a MINORITY. Most artwork does not endure through the ages. So? The stuff that _does make money_ should not profit the artist? What is your point? > [@](#): > > Most people don’t care about those works - but a few might. Copyright laws harm those few by increasing the costs of publication (since the printer has to pay a license fee and/or royalties to the copyright owner), :rolleyes: God forbid the publisher _pay_ the original artist anything… > [@](#): > > which can make the works unprofitable to reproduce in small numbers. There is a trend of “self publishing” going on ([here’s an excellent site about it)](http://www.parapublishing.com/) and there’s this thing called “Print on Demand” that makes most books easy to reproduce in small numbers. I have considered doing a small print run (maybe 500 - 1,000 copies) and I could get the job done for maybe $500 - $1200, depending on where I go. It is no longer true that small print runs are not worth doing. Moreover, many _writers_ are selling their own works through self-publishing or Print on Demand. > [@](#): > > More importantly, copyright inhibits the ability of later artists to “play with” and transform an almost-forgotten work to produce something new. If the artist is still alive, and the work is neglected and forgotten, I’m sure the newer artist would have no problem obtaining permission to “play with” the work at a reasonable fee. What does the neglected artist or author have to lose by allowing it? They might even get some more attention to their other works. But if the original artist or author _does not want_ anyone tinkering with their work (at least not in a published form) well, too bad. Wait for the artist or author to die. Come up with some other ideas. The rest of us do it all the time. > [@](#): > > See my answers above - MOST artwork is mediocre at best, and loses commercial value over time **So who does it hurt if the original artist keeps rights?!?** It’s mediocre, NO ONE ELSE wants it! > [@](#): > > Copyright serves to give monopoly control to the copyright holder - and monopolies act to drive up prices and restrict distribution, But if NO ONE ELSE wants it, who cares? If it sucks, no matter who owns copyright, it won’t find an audience, so who cares? And what is so terrible (once again) in people like Primaflora actually getting to _profit_ from their own work, even after many years have passed? Why should she have to share these profits with anyone else if she doesn’t want to? _They_ didn’t do the work, _she_ did! They just want to profit from it without her getting anything! (And I hasten to add, who says that Primaflora or any of the rest of us are automatically going to be able to raise prices? We _all_ compete with other artists, writers, and so forth. If we price our works too high, we won’t sell anything.) > [@](#): > > especially in the case of works that have a limited audience. In the age of the Web, it is extremely easy to release “limited audience” works in MP3 form, CDR, e-Book, and so forth. More and more authors and artists are doing this. They don’t need “public domain” to release their works for them, they can do it well on their own, at a very low cost. And if they don’t want to release their own work anymore? Why should their right to _not_ have their work released (whether it be because of moral objections, or whatever) be overridden? Wait until they are cold in the grave, anyway… > [@](#): > > I personally have no problem with copyrights lasting for the life of the original artist. Then why are you arguing about how not many artists don’t make money from older works, and how their “monopoly” is hampering other artists from “playing with” their work? > [@](#): > > Society got along perfectly well for most of history with either no copyrights at all, or only very short copyright periods; I don’t notice a dearth of great art from the past. No, just a lot of starving artists, or artists who did not get the appreciation that they (in my opinion) deserved. While the big publishing companies profited. > [@](#): > > Do you honestly think that people would stop writing novels, making music, painting, ect., if copyrights were radically shortened? All it might do is make it less likely that an artist could make a living **solely** by practicing his/her art And it benefits “The Arts” how if an artist can’t make a full time living at art? Does it bother you somehow to think that some people can make a living doing something they _love?_ What’s it to you if they actually produce something that _makes money_, and they are allowed to keep the profits from the work they love? > [@](#): > > but since when does society owe anyone a guarentee that they’ll make a living doing something they enjoy? Oh, because they “enjoy” it, they shouldn’t have a better chance at making a living at it? Is this an offshoot of the “real job” attitude I sometimes detect? If they are not going to make any money at it, if they aren’t able enough, if there is no audience for their work, then no matter what, they will not make a living, and no one _owes_ them that. But when their work _does_ find an audience, and _does_ bring in money, why shouldn’t _they_ keep the money? _Their_ work earned the money. Why should publishing companies keep making profits while the artist with money-making works has to work at a so-called “real job” in order to make ends meet? > [@](#): > > I have a hard time weeping for the poor artist who’s forced to take a day job and work on his art in his spare time, But it’s OK if their art _does_ make money, but they are not allowed to profit from it after a certain amount of years? Because that’s been what some people on this thread would like to see happen. ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/130 "2002-12-01T08:04:06Z")
I need someone to explain to me why it is OK for a publisher to make a profit. After all, if artists and authors are expected to donate for the good of society, why should a multinational conglomerate continue to profit? artemis, the reason I don’t personally like fan fic or slash is that as an author it’s people taking your work and taking it in directions that you had not anticipated or do not like. It’s within the realm of possibility for a writer to be sued for copyright infringement if they use an idea which a fan writes and puts on the web. I know a lot of writers feel differently to me and that’s cool. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/131 "2002-12-01T19:04:00Z")
Wait a minute… Arn’t these big evil publishers complaining that copyright infringment is seriously hurting their profits? Arn’t they the ones that devoting all kinds of resources to getting stricter copyright laws passed? It wasn’t called the mickey mouse copyright law because a small-time artist pushed it. Why would they do this if there are all kinds of untold fortunes they could be making from reducing copyright? According to **Yosemitebabe** and **Primaflora** , slackened copyright laws would allow major corporations to exploit artist’s work and make all kinds of cash. Well then, they should be all for it! Why arn’t the major corporations pushing for extremely short copyright lengths, if they have so much to gain from it? Are they just being benevolent when they get laws extending copyright passed through congress? I don’t understand why the would work so hard against their own interests if there is so much for them to gain by exploiting artistic works that arn’t copyrighted. ---
**Author:** ![Joools](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6de8d8/32.png) [@Joools](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joools)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/132 "2002-12-01T19:19:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Aren’t these big evil publishers complaining that copyright infringment is seriously hurting their profits? Exactly. Look at who filed friend-of-the-court briefs for each side of _Eldred vs. Ashcroft_. The publishers and distributors were vehemently against shortening copyright terms, and those in favor were economists, civil libertarians, and internet librarians like Eldred. AOL Time Warner is sitting on _loads_ of copyrights. It’s the whole value of their company. To get access to Joe Small Artist’s work, they would need to release all their holdings of equal age into the public domain. You can’t seriously think they’re willing to make that trade. AOL Time Warner doesn’t need the public domain. If they want to publish something you own, they’re going to be able to afford your terms. But you certainly can’t afford anything that AOL Time Warner owns. Long copyright terms disproportionately help those who own lots of copyrights. These posts that cast the pro-public-domain position as anti-artist really bug me. Public domain does not equal “the artist is not allowed to profit.” Far from it. It _only_ means that society has decided to no longer expend effort to protect an artificial monopoly on distribution of your work. You had a sporting chance to exclusively call the shots on how it’s distributed, but you’re on your own now, kid. So let’s say copyright terms were forty years, a hypothetical case. You create something in your twenties, and you know it will go into the public domain within your lifetime. What’s your recourse as an artist? You create your own derivative works well before the copyright expires: revised editions of your book, re-mastered versions of your photographs and cd’s. You add introductions, outtakes, etc. Fix the punctuation. These become the canonical version – an “improved by the artist” version of something will always be more marketable than “unimproved” or “improved by somebody else”. And the copyright on the new work starts at the date of the improvement. Once the copyright expires, if you didn’t hold the copyright, you republish your own out-of-print book and sell it through your website. You sell signed limited edition framed runs of your photograph; you tell the world how you’re the inspiration behind Disney’s “Picture Of Half Dome At Sunset: The Musical”, so that Disney’s marketing engine becomes free advertising for your other work. You make like Christopher Tolkien and Brian Herbert, creating new editions and offshoots from “Lord of the Rings” and “Dune” while they still retain the copyright. They have all of Dad’s notes lying around, which nobody else has. As the artist, or the kin of the artist, you’re in an inherently better position to profit from your work, even after it becomes public domain. You have the negatives, you have the notes, you have the name. In all of these scenarios, the solution is _improvements_ to the original, finding _added value_, and encouraging _private enterprise_. Society gets more art instead of more government. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/133 "2002-12-01T19:24:29Z")
> [@](#): > > I need someone to explain to me why it is OK for a publisher to make a profit. After all, if artists and authors are expected to donate for the good of society, why should a multinational conglomerate continue to profit? Excellent point, Primaflora. If the copyright holder is expected to “donate” their work, then there should be some regulation that doesn’t allow the publisher to make any profit eiither. Pass the savings along to the public. Fair’s fair, after all. I realize I made an error in an earlier post—I said that small print runs were cheap (and they are) but not quite as cheap as I originall cited. I believe can get a small print run of books done (100 - 500 copies on up) for approx. $2 - $5 a copy. Add $10 to the price of the book to cover all other expenses and profits and it’s $12 - $15—not unreasonable for a “trade paperback” book. Thanks to current technology, a lot of neglected or “limited interest” books can now inexpensively be put back into circulation for a low price. As Primaflora mentioned a while back, usually if a book is out of print for a certain amount of years (I think it’s 5) the author gets back rights and can have it published somewhere else. A lot of these authors are going the self-publishing or POD (Print on Demand) route. Pretty cool—they get to make some more money off of their work, and the work is now available again! And, [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) _prides_ themselves in carrying every book out there, so these very small print run books will be featured on Amazon, where they are easily accessable to everyone! > [@](#): > > _even sven wrote:_ > Why would they do this if there are all kinds of untold fortunes they could be making from reducing copyright? According to Yosemitebabe and Primaflora, slackened copyright laws would allow major corporations to exploit artist’s work and make all kinds of cash. I’m sure that these publishing companies would _prefer_ to keep copyright lengths long, so they could hang onto the copyrights they already own and keep a stranglehold on these works. However, if copyrights were shortened the way that some of you prefer, the publishing companies would _still_ be able to publish works, _still_ be able to sell works. They’d be competing with each other, sure, but they’d have a wider variety of works to sell, without having to go to the pesky trouble of paying any authors or artists for their work. They’d still manage to make a buck. However, the artist and author would be cut out of the process. Sure, they could do the “Print on Demand” thing and get their own works published that way, but they would be competing with larger publishing companies with cheaper printing costs, bigger advertising budgets and probably better quality printing (4 color covers instead of 2 color covers, etc. etc.). ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/134 "2002-12-01T19:33:11Z")
Also, you guys seem very concerned with artist’s being able to profit from their work. Well lets say it is 2015. My hypothetical daughter (who has never seen a new work enter the public domain in her lifetime) writes a piece of Hogan’s Heroes slash that contains some revolutionary ideas that will change the world. For some reason, the character in Hogan’s Heroes were the best way to get her revolutionary life-improving ideas into the world. She put a lot of time, education and work into this piece of slash. She created a new work of art that theoretically improves our culture. But not only can she not profit from her work, she can’t even publish it! There better be a really compelling reason for my daughter not being able to profit from the work that she did. And there better be a more-than-compelling reason that she should not be allowed to use her freedom of speech to publically diseminate her work. I don’t think the rights of the great grandchildren of long-dead writers of a mediocre television show that hasn’t even been aired in a few decades trumps my daughters freedom of speech. I don’t even think it trumps her right to make a profit off the work that she does. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/135 "2002-12-01T19:48:53Z")
> [@](#): > > _Joools wrote:_ > You create your own derivative works well before the copyright expires: revised editions of your book, re-mastered versions of your photographs and cd’s. You add introductions, outtakes, etc. Fix the punctuation. These become the canonical version – an “improved by the artist” version of something will always be more marketable than “unimproved” or “improved by somebody else”. And the copyright on the new work starts at the date of the improvement. That’s a good idea. A _very_ good idea. However, it doesn’t stop other people from ripping off or distorting the early copyrighted version, (where all the character development and ideas, are pretty similar to almost exact to the newer “copyrighted” versions) right? And with my photos, well, I may edit them and “restore” them years down the line, but because of the nature of these images, they are not going to change dramatically. An old no longer copyrighted version of Half Dome at Sunset will more than suffice for someone who wants to exploit the images on t-shirts and mugs. They’d find _plenty_ to exploit and profit from in the “old” versions. And why? Because a publishing company wants to make a profit, and not pay the artist or author for their contribution. And it doesn’t help if an author or artist does a whole lot of wonderful works while in their 20s, falls upon bad health, and can’t produce any new works, or even revise the older works. But they have to see others profiting off of their work years down the road, while they are left out of the picture. > [@](#): > > _even sven wrote:_ > She put a lot of time, education and work into this piece of slash. She created a new work of art that theoretically improves our culture. But not only can she not profit from her work, she can’t even publish it! God Forbid she contact the original copyright holders, or anything, and ask about buying rights… > [@](#): > > There better be a really compelling reason for my daughter not being able to profit from the work that she did. Like, don’t be stupid enough to put a lot of work into something when you know BEFOREHAND that you might not be able to profit from it! > [@](#): > > I don’t think the rights of the great grandchildren of long-dead writers of a mediocre television show that hasn’t even been aired in a few decades trumps my daughters freedom of speech. And she couldn’t write about a hypothetical Stalag 14 instead of Stalag 13? She couldn’t have the main character named “Hubert” and changed a few other details to make the story _her own?_ Is she so untalented and uncreative that she can’t get her oh-so-important point across without riding on the back of someone else’s work? And if it’s all about a “mediocre television show that hasn’t even been aired in a few decades” then why the hell is it so all-fired important that she RIP IT OFF? No one will make the connection. No one watches the show anymore anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Joools](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6de8d8/32.png) [@Joools](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joools)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/136 "2002-12-01T20:16:44Z")
> [@](#): > > However, it doesn’t stop other people from ripping off or distorting the early copyrighted version, (where all the character development and ideas, are pretty similar to almost exact to the newer “copyrighted” versions) right? It doesn’t stop that, but every proposal that’s been floated on this thread would give an artist between thirty and fifty years to figure out how to distinguish their revision enough that they would continue to see value. It doesn’t take much cleverness to find ways to make all of those mugs into free advertising for you, the artist. You have the negatives, you have the vision, and you have the name – all of those things have value. Competitive value. Look at the movie “Metropolis”. In the public domain. Lots of different studios sell a “Metropolis” dvd, all of varying quality. Wonderful manga and anime versions have been produced, with nothing going to Fritz Lang or his family. So what do they do? Go back through his notes, find the original score, clean up the original prints, and re-release it. With the upcoming “restored” version in the wild, who would spend money on one of the public domain versions? In our society, the new, better one will obviously win. And it seems like everybody wins. Despite the macho “think up your own ideas” thing that everybody’s been declaring, the anime version of metropolis genuinely does use an old, familiar story to convey a new message, in a way that could not have been done at the time. And there are still ways for the original artist (or his heirs) to participate, and to profit. And, in fact, the anime Metropolis is what sparked enough interest in the original to motivate the restoration. > [@](#): > > And it doesn’t help if an author or artist does a whole lot of wonderful works while in their 20s, falls upon bad health, and can’t produce any new works, or even revise the older works. I know. But that’s really a separate problem. We have a social safety net for people who are completely unable to work for decades at a time. It’s better for society to just pay their bills than it is to structure public policy so that their bills get paid through royalties for work they did thirty/fifty years ago. The latter has repurcussions all over society (many of which are negative), and the former just costs us a little bit of money. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/137 "2002-12-01T20:41:03Z")
Joools, you do bring up some interesting points, and some worth considering. But there are still some misgivings on my part. > [@](#): > > _Joools wrote:_ > It doesn’t stop that, but every proposal that’s been floated on this thread would give an artist between thirty and fifty years to figure out how to distinguish their revision enough that they would continue to see value. It doesn’t take much cleverness to find ways to make all of those mugs into free advertising for you, the artist. And the other way around, too. Cheap knock-offs of my work could be marketed with the advertisment, “Yosemitebabe’s famous Half Dome photo on a t-shirt and mug!” They would be exploiting my higher quality work, giving the impression the products were sanctioned by me. They’d be sold in every _Fingerhut_ catalog, be of cheap quality, competing with my higher quality and only slightly more expensive work. It wouldn’t be just the possible loss of revenue for _me_ that would bug me, but the idea that low quality work was being passed off as the best I could do, if you follow that. Someone sees a bad reproduction of Half Dome at Sunset, thinks that Half Dome at Sunset is a pretty unimpressive picture, and is left with that impression for a long time. This can possibly damage my reputation, and I wouldn’t like that. > [@](#): > > You have the negatives, you have the vision, and you have the name – all of those things have value. Competitive value. True enough, and what you say does make a difference. But it still doesn’t take away the risk of horrible rip offs and cheap prints, neither of which any artist or author wants. > [@](#): > > I know. But that’s really a separate problem. We have a social safety net for people who are completely unable to work for decades at a time… The social safety net doesn’t always work really well, but that’s a topic for another thread. > [@](#): > > It’s better for society to just pay their bills than it is to structure public policy so that their bills get paid through royalties for work they did thirty/fifty years ago. Why should the artist sit back, hoping that the “social safety net” is enough, while someone else rakes in the bucks? It seems grossly unfair. > [@](#): > > The latter has repurcussions all over society (many of which are negative), and the former just costs us a little bit of money That’s a topic for another thread, really. Some would argue that it isn’t just a little bit of money, and some would argue that it isn’t implimented well, or fairly. I still don’t see why a person should see work that they did _in their lifetime_ go to profit someone else, while they are depending on the government to support them. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/138 "2002-12-01T20:52:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\* If the copyright holder is expected to “donate” their work, then there should be some regulation that doesn’t allow the publisher to make any profit eiither. Pass the savings along to the public. Fair’s fair, after all._\* This is a misunderstanding of the situation. When you allow competition, savings are automatically passed to the public. Supposing that the copyright of a work expires, it is true that the original publisher can now print and distribute the work without paying royalties. But it is also true that _every other publisher_ can print and distribute the work. The government-sponsored monopoly (the copyright) has ended, and the rules of competition begin. And once competition begins, the cost the public has to pay for the work plummets. Think about it. You can get a copy of Hamlet cheap (free online, or very inexpensive if you go to the bookstore and buy it). > [@](#): > > God Forbid she contact the original copyright holders, or anything, and ask about buying rights… I thought this had been sufficiently explained. I really did. The copyright holders can deny the license. By denying the license, the copyright holders are _depriving the world of something beautiful._ > [@](#): > > She couldn’t have the main character named “Hubert” and changed a few other details to make the story _her own?_ Is she so untalented and uncreative that she can’t get her oh-so-important point across without riding on the back of someone else’s work? > > And if it’s all about a “mediocre television show that hasn’t even been aired in a few decades” then why the hell is it so all-fired important that she RIP IT OFF? No one will make the connection. No one watches the show anymore anyway. \*\* Yet again, she is not somehow “untalented” for using a older story. She is not “ripping off” the story. She is not “exploiting” anyone. Yes, she is using a story created by another, but so what? It wasn’t unethical for Shakespeare to borrow previously told stories. It wasn’t due to a lack of talent that he did so. Taking a story that the public is already familiar with and reworking it is an _extremely_ powerful artistic device. It was 400 years ago, and it still is today. But today we have evil, greedy corporations making the rules. The economy is suffering because of it, and artistic development is suffering because of it. And it needs to end. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/139 "2002-12-01T21:08:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stricker van Gogh \* > > But it is also true that _every other publisher_ can print and distribute the work. The government-sponsored monopoly (the copyright) has ended, and the rules of competition begin. True enough, which means that the publishers would prefer to have copyright longer, rather than shorter. But still—do you think these publishers are going to print works when they are not going to get _any_ profit? None? Zero? Nada? Zip? They won’t bother, will they? So they _will_ be still profiting, while the artist (who is expected to “donate” their work) gets nothing. You know…zero, zip, nada. > [@](#): > > I thought this had been sufficiently explained. I really did. > > The copyright holders can deny the license. By denying the license, the copyright holders are _depriving the world of something beautiful._ But how often does this really happen? Why do copyright holders hang onto something but never want to profit from it? I know it happens, but is it the rule? Is it the norm? Perhaps sometimes, but certainly not all the time. Or could it be that the copyright holders actually _want to be paid_ for their work, and that the people who want to use their work don’t want to pay them? Could that have something to do with it? Believe me, I’ve encountered this many a time. Some people think they are “doing me a favor” by publishing my work. They think that because I “enjoyed” doing it, it isn’t a “real job” and that I really don’t need to get paid much. These are also the kind of people who cannot _fathom_ why they should pay for copyrighted work. It’s right there, isn’t it? Ripe for the taking, right? So who are they hurting if they use it? I should be _honored_ that they chose _my_ work to rip o…errr…“display”. Seriously—a lot of people are like this. I’ve encountered this type all my life. They act _offended_ at the prospect of actually _paying._ > [@](#): > > Yet again, she is not somehow “untalented” for using a older story. She is not “ripping off” the story. She is not “exploiting” anyone. Yes, she is using a story created by another, but so what? It wasn’t unethical for Shakespeare to borrow previously told stories. It wasn’t due to a lack of talent that he did so. True enough, but do you really think that if Shakespeare could not use older stories, that he’d wither up and die, and never write anything? _Especially_ if he knew _beforehand_ that he couldn’t “borrow” someone else’s work? If he knew beforehand (just like even sven’s kid knows she can’t “borrow” Hogan’s Heroes) then Shakespeare would have adjusted. I have no doubt of it. > [@](#): > > But today we have evil, greedy corporations making the rules. The economy is suffering because of it, and artistic development is suffering because of it. And it needs to end. Yes, the evil corporatiosn are evil, and they need to be stopped. But that still doesn’t mean that I think it would be OK for someone to use my photos, profit from them without my consent (and without giving me any credit, or any money) and it doesn’t mean that many authors would think it were OK if someone were to do horrible, horrible things to their characters, particularly in the their lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291/140 "2002-12-01T22:14:51Z")
We’re getting to the meat of it here. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\*True enough, which means that the publishers would prefer to have copyright longer, rather than shorter. > > But still—do you think these publishers are going to print works when they are not going to get _any_ profit? None? Zero? Nada? Zip? They won’t bother, will they? So they _will_ be still profiting, while the artist (who is expected to “donate” their work) gets nothing. You know…zero, zip, nada.\*\* Yes, publishers are taking a risk printing something that they don’t own exclusive rights to. So, you’re correct, there will be some profit involved. But it’s not “excess” profit. It’s not profit due to a monopoly - it’s the profit without which there would be no books for you to read. Take away that profit, and you stop nearly every printing press in the nation, whether or not they’re printing copyrighted or public domain works. And as for artists receiving nothing: Under my ideal, after 25 years that would be true. I consider the amount of time that newborns can grow to their prime sufficient for an artist to profit from a work. But I would be more than happy with the 50/life plan, as I’ve already said. And what does the artist receives after they’re dead? Nothing. You know…zero, zip, nada. The heirs weren’t responsible for the work, and they don’t deserve to sit back and rake in the cash (beyond any temporary boom due to the author’s death). If the author wants to leave the heirs an inheritance, it should be in the form of cash, not in the form of a monopoly that deprives the public of the work. > [@](#): > > **But how often does this really happen? Why do copyright holders hang onto something but never want to profit from it? I know it happens, but is it the rule? Is it the norm? Perhaps sometimes, but certainly not all the time. Or could it be that the copyright holders actually _want to be paid_ for their work, and that the people who want to use their work don’t want to pay them? Could that have something to do with it?** It’s anything but the “norm”, but it does happen - on a very regular basis, I’d wager. And I have no doubt that copyright holders _want_ to be paid for the work that they own. It’s just that, in many cases, they don’t _deserve_ to be paid for a work that they own, and they don’t _deserve_ censorship power to stop an adaptation of the work from appearing. You would argue that creators deserve that power. Okay, I won’t argue that. The 50/life plan would give creators that power. But the Disney Corporation _does not_ deserve such power when it comes to cartoon characters that have been around since before World War II. And yet they have it. > [@](#): > > **True enough, but do you really think that if Shakespeare could not use older stories, that he’d wither up and die, and never write anything? _Especially_ if he knew _beforehand_ that he couldn’t “borrow” someone else’s work? If he knew beforehand (just like even sven’s kid knows she can’t “borrow” Hogan’s Heroes) then Shakespeare would have adjusted. I have no doubt of it.** Yes, I think Shakespeare would have managed. It’s even possible that his works would have been even better if he had used original material. But it’s also a very real possibility that his work would have suffered because of it. Most all of human progress relies on that which has come before. If Shakespeare felt truly inspired by the potential of the stories he had read, but couldn’t do anything about it, then he would’ve carried on, but perhaps he would not have reached the heights that he actually did. Maybe you consider that far fetched, but I consider it a very likely possibility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-last-too-long/138291.md?page=8)