If I could no longer recognize it, then I would not care one whit.
In fact, I am almost positive people have already done this. For instance, Yosemite’s Half Dome is a recognizable landmark, and a lot of people want to show its image for a variety of reasons. If, say, someone wanted to create a stylized “logo” of Half Dome (using Photoshop filters and the like) and just happened to swipe my Half Dome picture off the web as their starting point, then I would have zero problems with that. But if they don’t change it enough and I can recognize it as my picture with relative ease, then that’s a problem. They’ve got to put in enough creative ingenuity to make it their own and not just a worked-over copy of mine.
A copyright that lasts 70 years is simply too long.
A copyright less than 20 years is, I think, too short.
I would personally prefer a copyright of 25 years. This would give authors a healthy amount of time to make a profit, while at the same time insuring that they can’t sit on a single work for the rest of their lives.
It also gives the generation of early twenty-somethings, who matured to adulthood over the length of the copyright, the chance to give the idea, which is older than they are, a new direction.
If an author is writing a series of novels over the course of 25 years (or even 50 years), and the copyright on the first book lapses, anyone should be able to pick up the ideas of that first book and start running with them. If the reading public prefers the new author to the old, so be it.
Who are we to say that the new author won’t be a modern Shakespeare? How is it that Shakespeare can “borrow” stories, but nowadays we can’t do it because it’s “stealing”?
And giving heirs the copyright for 50 years after the author’s death is absolutely ridiculous. If authors want to make sure their children are well taken care of, then they should save as much money as they can from what they make from their books. Perpetuating the monopoly is not the way to go. It gives the children no reason to create themselves, and it denies the possibility that another will come along (as Shakespeare did) who can take the established idea and create something beautiful with it.
And why is that so terrible? It’s their work, after all.
This is all very interesting when it comes to the concept of characters in a book, (and I agree, worthy of further discussion) but what about my main concern—artwork and photography? Why should I have to give up exclusive rights to my artwork and photography after 25 years? To be honest, it isn’t the kind of work that will inspire radical new directions or ideas (unless you know something about Yosemite’s Half Dome that I don’t). Why can’t I keep exclusive rights to my work?
What if the author died a year after writing the most Brilliant Novel of the Ages, after borrowing and relying on their family and heirs for years before? Don’t you think that the heirs deserve a little profit from the work that they helped make possible through their financial support?
And, what about my main concern, which is my original artwork and photography? Why shouldn’t I be able to at least keep the rights to my own original artwork and drawings throughout my lifetime? What’s so terrible about my family benefitting from my work after my death (especially if I were to die prematurely, before my work had time to find its audience)? Why shouldn’t my family, who helped me out financially (art school, rent, etc) get “paid back” through the royalties of my work?
Who says they will anyway? Some people never create, and never will. And, in my case, I doubt the profits from my work would ever be great (unless my future includes mega-buck profits, which at this point I am not counting on). In my case, it would probably be a nice, steady trickle of money, to help make things a little nicer for my family. Is that so terrible?
There’s another thing I wanted to point out (to no one in particular): I remember an artist who used to do a lot of portrait drawings. Then she joined some crackpot religious group that felt that drawing images of people was a sin. So, not only did she stop drawing, she was trying to get all her drawings back. (She didn’t suceed, and I don’t blame the people who bought her drawings from refusing to sell them back to her, and needless to say, I thought it was a terrible shame that she quit drawing.) I don’t know if she had any of her drawings published (I suspect a few were) and if so, of course she’d refuse to allow anyone to print them.
While I think it was a tragedy that she quit drawing, I still think she had the right to not want her artwork published, because it offended her (admittedly crackpot) religious sensibilities. She’d changed her mind about the work that she’d released out there, and she no longer wanted it published. HER artwork, HER hard work, HER choice, and I think she had every right to want to control where and how it would be released to the public. Why should anyone go ahead and use her artwork without her consent after a few years?
To put into perspective how asinine the 90 years thing is, consider that Mark Twain died in 1910. If the rule had been in effect upon his death, then it would only have been 2 years since the date when you could legally publish an excerpt from ROUGHING IT (written in 1868!) without clearance from his heirs. OTOH, the works of George Armstrong Custer, written AFTER Innocents Abroad, would have been in the public domain for more than a generation because of the timing of his death.
Truman Capote’s IN COLD BLOOD will be making money for his very very distant cousins (his revenues went to his aunts, who left them to their cousins) at least until 2070, while Kurt Vonnegut’s masterpiece SLAUGHTERHOUSE 5 will be generating revenue for his great-great-great grandchildren at least until 2092, and all because The Evil Order of the Rodent doesn’t want a porn version of Steamboat Willie mounted on the web (plus, you know that in 2020 they’ll be kvetching again to extend the copyrights). Maybe this is the conclusive proof that Uncle Walt really was frozen- he wants those copyrights waiting when he gets back.
Personally I think it’s reasonable for an author to keep control of his works until his death (no offense intended to women authors with the use of “his”); it would be horrible to see a movie made of your autobiography in which Oliver Stone was free to do whatever he’d like without your permission and without you benefitting. After your death, I think 10 years is ample for your family.
I wonder how copyright is handled in the case of posthumously published works? (Is anybody familiar with the odd case of Thelma Toole’s battles for the rights to her son John Kennedy Toole’s works? She was the force for the publication of CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES, which happened 14 years after his death, and because she had a waiver from his uncles and cousins [who thought they were just humoring the old woman and it would never see a cent] she received the royalties; however, she refused to publish THE NEON BIBLE because his other relatives immediately demanded to share in its profits, and under Louisiana law she had no more right to the estate of her dead son than did his cousins, aunts, and uncles, so NEON BIBLE wasn’t published until after her own death.)
Read what Twain himself said about copyrights:
“I like that extension of copyright life to the author’s life and fifty years afterward. I think that would satisfy any reasonable author, because it would take care of his children. Let the grandchildren take care of themselves. That would take care of my daughters, and after that I am not particular. I shall then have long been out of this struggle, independent of it, indifferent to it.”
PS- Twain’s royalties did indeed support his surviving daughter, Clara, almost until her death in 1962. By the time her royalties played out in 1959 she was living off a trust worth well over $700,000 (BIG money for the time), all from her father’s literary estate.
When she died the money from the trust fund was divided 35/65 between her second husband, Jacques Samossoud, and her daughter, Nina Gabrilowitsch (who was born a few months after her grandfather’s death). Both Samossoud and Nina Gabrilowitsch died within a few years of Clara and both died without issue, so the Twain revenues ultimately benefitted Samossoud’s nephews and nieces in France. Twain would probably have been sickened that his money went to strangers in France.
Yeah, that’s another issue. What if your descendents turn out to be complete assholes who, if you were alive, you wouldn’t give them a single red cent of your money? If you’ve been dead for more than 50 years it’s not like you have much of a say.
OK, so you want to be able to make a living off your hard work.
Why can’t I work hard designing and building a car from scratch, then retain eternal control over that car once I sell it? Why can’t I tell the buyer where he can drive it, who he can have in the car, how much he can charge for rides, and what color he can paint it?
After all, I surely worked as hard as an author or photographer. Shouldn’t I be rewarded just as much for my hard work?
I don’t buy the difference between technical innovation and artistic innovation. When you take a picture, you may come up with a unique angle, lighting and filter setup, etc.; but it’s foolish to say that the picture is entirely original. You didn’t design the camera or the lenses, you didn’t invent the film, you didn’t invent the developing process or the chemicals.
Suppose you take a stunning picture of the Sears Tower. You have undeniably made an artistic contribution to that picture, and it wouldn’t exist without your talent–but neither would it exist without the ingenuity of the camera makers at Nikon, the film makers and chemists at Kodak, and the architects and construction workers who built the tower itself.
If your contribution gives you a moral right to decide what other people can do with that picture, shouldn’t Nikon, Kodak, and the Sears Tower architects and construction workers have the same right?
When you sell the car, you sell what “rights” you decide to sell with it. If you were to rent it, you’d sell less “rights” to the car than if you sold it outright.
When I sell “rights” to a photograph (and I just did that recently) I don’t sell the original, I sell rights. In this specific case, I sold 5 years non-exclusive rights to an El Capitan photo, to be used on an educational textbook. Very specific rights, that I can agree to, or not. And the price I got for the photo reflect the rights I sold.
I have sold many original pieces of artwork, and in those cases, I sold the actual physical artwork, but no publishing rights. Meaning, the buyer could flush the artwork down the toilet and I could not object. But they could not publish it, since I did not sell publishing rights. If I had wanted to sell all rights (including publishing) I could have done so, at a price that I considered appropriate. And I’d have to live with that forever. If I decided later that the price I was paid for all rights was too low—too bad, the deal was made.
Yes, you sell the “rights” you wish to sell for the car. It is agreed upon before you hand over the car. You can lease or rent it instead of selling it.
You pay for the film, the camera and all equipment. Implied in this purchase is the idea that you have the right to use the equipment in any way you choose. If the camera manufacturer did not wish to sell certain rights to their equipment, they could specify that before purchase.
If Sears Tower no longer wants anyone to photograph it, I suppose they could hire guards or other people to restrict access to the Tower. (Though, since it is a building in plain view in a large city, I don’t know what their legal rights would be in this regard.) There are plenty of places that do NOT allow free access, and do NOT allow photography to be taken. And they take pains to make sure it does not happen. I remember a while ago being at a King Tut exhibition. They had guards that made sure no one took any photos, or even any drawings! I brought my sketchbook into the exhibit, and the guards told me that if I kept on trying to draw anything, they’d confiscate my sketchbook.
They can decide to not sell RIGHTS to the work. They can force you to not have access to their products, or restrict the use of the products. But they don’t. The price they charge for the product does not have any such restrictions.
If I wanted to sell all rights to my photographs or artwork, I would be free to do so at any time, at a price that I considered fair and appropriate. But I should not be forced to give up more rights than I am willing to give up, since it is still MY hard work, and MY creation.
I’m convinced that in some casis we need to have copyrights last for awhile after death.
Scenerio: An 90 year old famous writer wants to write one last great novel. But only if he gets a cool 3 million from it. If the book went public right after he died than obviously it would be worthless for the publisher to pay him for it, since he’s going to croak soon anyway. But If the publisher can get 30 years of book selling from it, than it would be worth the effort for him to write it.
Here’s a compromise that I think would very adequetely cover the need to give authors incentives to write, and still gives concern to the needs of the public:
The copyright lasts until the death of the author, or 30 years from the date of first publication, whichever comes last. You can rake in revenue for at least a generations worth in case you die soon after writing (that would cover your children), and you never have to see a tasteless porno that copies your work verbatim but intersperced with gay sex!
This would prevent almost all of the nightmere scenerios posted by the objectors of reducing the length of copyrights. And it would be less of a nightmere for book lovers such a Samiro. It seems like it would work well for everyone.
Objections? Those who are Disney Executives need not reply.
I’m not sure I still like that, though I do see your point.
I still want my heirs to benefit from my artwork, after my death, even if I did the artwork 50 years before my death. In my case, I am probably never going to be world famous, so any bit of income any of my work can bring in is something I want my family to profit from.
**he copyright lasts until the death of the author, or 30 years from the date of first publication, whichever comes last. **
I think something like that is totally fair. I might tack on 7 years from the author’s death just to take care of a surviving spouse, but that’s ample.
We’re really only talking about maybe 1% of 1% of everything published anyway. Most books, even bestsellers, are dead in the water 10 years after they’re written. (Frank Yerby, for example, was one of the bestselling authors from the late 1940s thru early 1960s; he died in 1991, not one of his books is currently in print, and yet they’re “protected” until 2061; Isaac Asimov wrote 500 books of which perhaps two dozen are still in print and their combined revenue would probably not support anybody in anything like luxury.) Many authors make more money from speaking engagements than from royalties just two years after they’re bestseller (Alice Walker asks $20-$30K for a speech, for example, and hasn’t had a literary “hit” in years).
Hello, U.S. Copyright law specifies seventy years after the copyright claimant’s death, not ninety.
§ 302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978
(a) In General.-Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.
(b) Joint Works.-In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author’s death.
I know most of you are talking about writing, but this copyright law does apply to visual art (photos, art) too, right?
For instance, my dad left thousands of photographs. THOUSANDS. He was a good photographer, but was too shy to show his photographs in public (he thought he wasn’t “good enough”, but he certainly was). His photos of early 1960s London were especially awesome.
It has been my plan to gradually plow through his photos and make them available as “stock photos”, and sell them, not unlike the way I have been selling my own photos. (He did scenic and travel photos too.) Now, since my dad died almost 15 years ago, if the copyright laws were changed, I’d either have NO exclusive rights to these photographs, or would have only have rights for a few more years. I believe that my mom, his widow, should be able to benefit from his hard work for a while longer. If our family wants to share his work with the world I think we should have some say-so on how it is distributed as well. (It would take a great deal of time, effort and semi-expensive computer equipment to scan his slides and prepare a web site showing his photographs.)
If copyright laws were altered in the way some of you prefer, I don’t know if I’d even bother processing or publishing any of his photographs in the first place. There would be no point, since the only reason I’d do it is to bring in some income for my mom, and yeah, a little for me too (since I’d be doing all the actual grunt work). So, what would be better, or more preferable? For me to never release any of my dad’s fine photos to the world (and some of them are lovely)? Or for me and the rest of my dad’s family to have some control over his work for a certain amount years after his death? How do you propose this should work?
Also bear in mind that my some of my dad’s photos date back to the '50s. He used Kodachrome slides, and they keep VERY well. If copyright starts the minute the work is created (and I’m not sure if some of you would argue that it would in my dad’s case) then our family would have already lost any rights to his work. So, I guess we should just let all his photos sit in boxes, and never share them with anyone. No point to it. Especially for me. Hours and hours of scanning and color correcting with Photoshop, just so that his photos would immediately be “public domain”? Sorry, I wouldn’t bother to do all that work if that’s how copyright law worked. And the rest of you won’t see some of the really cool photos he took. How is this benefitting anyone?
Unnecessarily long copyrights are terrible for the reason I’ve already mentioned. The longer a work is copyrighted, the longer we deny a modern Shakespeare the ability to take that work, tinker with it, and create something new and wonderful with it.
I understand your concern about the pictures, but they are a different matter. Your family owns the originals. If you were to exert effort to restore those photos, those very restorations would be protected by copyright.
If I had my way, the copyright on your restorations would last 25 years. You put in the effort to restore them, yes. You deserve to be compensated for that, yes. The world is better off when it has access to those photos, yes.
But suppose a modern photographic genius looks at those restorations and is inspired. What is she to do? Absolutely nothing, so long as the copyright lasts. Should she really have to wait the entire length of your lifetime, and then another 70 years? That’s the current law, and it sickens me.
Let’s suppose I had my way: The genius was born a year after you restored the pictures. She discovers your restorations when she’s 20. In this case, she only has to wait four more years before she can work her magic. And her magic will be rewarded for another 25 years, afterward freed up for a genius from the next generation.
25 years is my ideal, but 50 years wouldn’t bother me overmuch. The aforementioned photographic genius who was born a year after the restorations has to wait until she’s 49, but that’s okay.
But do you see why it’s so disgusting when she has to wait any longer? How long do you think she’s going to live? If the copyright lasts longer than she does, you have stolen something beautiful from the world.
The Disney Corporation doesn’t care about that. But I hope you do.
I think many of you are avoiding the main issue. GREEDY EVIL CORPORATIONS. I don’t have any problem extending the copyrigth till the author’s death. Nor of protecting their heirs granting them a few more years of profit.
We all know that the extension of the copyright laws will benefit the heirs indirectly, the direct winners are the ones that bribed the congress, that is corporations.
And what makes me sick is that most of times the owner of the copyrighht is not the person who “painted”, “recorded”, “writed”, “invented”, “had a great idea”, etc. The owners are big companies.
Is any ‘modern Shakespeare’ really being hampered by copyright restrictions? He or she is not much of a creative artist if they are. The original Shakespeare reworked material to hand not because he thought that approach was ‘better’ but because it was easier. You’re surely not suggesting Shakespeare’s play are great because he copied bits of plot from elsewhere? There is an argument about parodies, sequels etc. but that is just a minor side issue. As genuine talents know, what really matters in most great works are the the bits that are not subject to copyright.
Copyright exists not to stop other writers stealing material (although it does have that effect) but to stop other publishers from doing so. Why should another publisher be allowed to get all the profits from a work they did not originate?
Yes, but equally those corporations also have the most to gain from their relaxation. However much Disney may be concerned about the little guys getting the chance to exploit Mickey Mouse, that is nothing compared to their fear that their real rivals, such as Time-Warner, will do as well. The only way to make money from a brand such as Mickey is to be an greedy evil corporation and that will be as true of those who will steal him when copyright lapses as it is of Disney itself.
Thank you so much for saying your photographic artwork deserves more protection than my written artwork. Jesus, self-centered much?
I would have no problem with copyrights not extending past the life of the author, or at least not much (perhaps 30 years, or the life of the author, whichever is longer). Afterall, my dad’s a lawyer – when he dies, I will not inherit his law degree. If he wanted me to inherit his clients, he could bring me into his law firm (after I get a degree). Likewise, though I will propbably have no children, if I did, and I wanted them to inherit my stories, I’d bring them in ont eh writing so that they held the copyright with me.
All I care about is that, over the course of my life, that I control the characters and stories that I create, and that no one earns so much as a cent from my efforts. That no one else has the ability to take my characters and sully them, to pervert them, to mutilate them, so long as I’m alive.
After I’m dead, have at it, I suppose.
Anwyay, anyone who cannot take the common concepts that surround us and create thier own characters, but instead must take mine, or someone elses, and use them, is not much of an artist/writer. I can see no good in hurting those of us who do create in order to aid those who do not creaete, and instead just latch onto other people’s work like a parasite.
As for corporate controlled copyrights, I’m not sure. Perhaps 50 to 70 years should be the time limit, as that is the normal extent of a human life.
Our neo-Shakespeare can contact the copyright holder for a license. And if the copyright holder does not wish to grant a license, our neo-Shakespeare can learn how to create original works without having to exploit the works of others, poor thing.
The vast majority of copyright violations occur out of desire for commercial gain, not artisitc advancement (my brother is an intellectual property lawyer). But you are advocating taking away decades of renumeration to those who create original works, so that those who exploit existing works can make a profit, in the romantic hope that a budding Shakespeare will arise out of this tail-wagging-the-dog arrangement.
:rolleyes: Is that what you got from my concerns?Or perhaps do you think that maybe my seemingly single-minded concerns over my images are somewhat appropriate, since just about NO ONE ELSE on this thread seems to want to address them, and instead wants to focus on soley on literary works?
Tell me, are photographs and artwork the same as stories? No. The ideas and concepts from my pictures are simple (Half Dome is very simple, trust me) and I don’t think it’s the same as discussing complex plots, character developments, and what have you.
Though, I do agree—your characters do deserve to be protected. I absolutely do not want to see someone else re-work your characters in your lifetime, and certainly I don’t want to see someone re-publish your work and profit from it while you are still alive.
But what exactly are they going to do with my photographs, and my dad’s photographs? Anyone is always free to use any of my or my dad’s photographs as a “starting point” (and then they go on to re-work them to the point of them being nigh onto unrecognizable to me) but to be honest, that would never be the main attraction of these kind of photographs. These are scenic photographs—their main commercial value will be in their unadulterated form. If some photographic genius from a future generation wants to get a stunning photo of Half Dome, it’s really simple. They just travel to Yosemite and take their own picture, and put their own unique touch to the photo. Half Dome really hasn’t changed much in the last thousand years. And if they can’t travel to photograph Half Dome themselves, that’s too bad. They can instead travel to where they can travel to, and take pictures of that. I don’t feel the need to “borrow” photographs from Germany, simply because I haven’t traveled there myself yet.
In my case, it isn’t the future artistic geniuses that I believe will be limited or hampered by the current copyright laws, it is the evil corporations who could use them for advertisments or publications, instead of bothering to pay a contemporary freelance photographer to do the work.
In all my years of creating artwork and photography, I haven’t felt the need to swipe someone else’s ideas. Few artists I know are tempted—we want to be original and unique.
The closest I’ve gotten is when I’ve used someone else’s photographs of celebrities to do a drawing or painting (I can’t get Mel Gibson to pose for me, sorry). Most of these portraits are done for fun, and I certainly don’t expect for them to be published, or for me to make a profit from them. However, if I wanted to be resourceful, I could use several different source photos of Mel Gibson, “meld” them all together, and create my own unique portrait of Mel. The portrait would no longer resemble any of the copyrighted photographs I used as inspiration. To me (and to copyright law too, I believe) this is acceptable. To use someone else’s work as a springboard and then rework it to the point that it is a completely different work—that’s OK. But if I didn’t have the skill to put enough of “myself” into the work? Too bad! Not all talents are created equal.
If someone is not capable of creating something unique enough on their own, then maybe they are in the wrong business. I hasten to add, nothing is stopping them from copying my work or anyone else’s work for personal enjoyment (in fact, I know that some people have already done that with my work) but I don’t see why they should profit from it.
